Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again

From	Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again
Date	2015-09-30 06:30 +0200
Message-ID	<qehbH-2yx-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <qdiMx-6h2-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qdqAp-JT-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qdrGb-2kr-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qe5DB-2XB-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qe72H-4PH-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Hey Reco,

I want to verify couple things to make sure we do understand couple basics.
What certifies a sysadmin? is there any requirement else then knowledge 
and experience? is there an alternative to understanding the 
fundamentals of computers?
And I would try to clear the question in couple directions.
Leaving debian, ubuntu, redhat, ms and all the others aside for a sec, 
what a company expects from a sysadmin is not to be programmer.
System administrator is required to know the fundamentals of the 
machinery and software he operates.
It would not be sane for any company to take a janitor or a plumber to 
handle their IT infrastructure, but, and couple of them:
- What if a plumber could operate an IT infrastructure or even a single 
system? why not? because his title is a plumber?
- What if a sysadmin took the exams and have the background and 
knowledge in IT and other areas but keeps taking the wrong turns?
- Why by definition a sysadmin should be a programmer?
- Why are there so many IT systems that requires the admin to know so 
many things?

I would not imagine what would happen to a company that builds 
microwaves or AC that requires the user\operator to know a shelf of 
handbooks just to touch the power button.
In reality there are devices which requires background and understanding 
but this is what many companies are trying is to prevent.

There are many companies that builds products that by definition require 
to fit a non-programmer operator.
There are a lot of products which are designed to give the sysadmin a 
product he can simply use and operate.

A sysadmin is not a debugger, QA tester or a programmer!!!
The basic task of a sysadmin is to take a piece of computerized 
machinery and operate it.

It is not a common sense that a sysadmin would be required to know the 
internals of the system he operates in the programming level.
The industry in general do tend to create products that passed a proper 
QA and was designed for simple operation.
This is how it was for many years and many still do their best in it. 
But there are products in the industry which are built in the wrong 
way(which might still fit some clients)
I would not argue that there are products which requires more knowledge 
and more background and experience due to their complexity.

I argue that a sysadmin is not an engineer and they are both not 
programmers by definition while in some cases these roles will require 
them to have a really good programming background and experience.
I have heard more then once something like "CISCO and MS are the worst" 
or something similar but in in their products they do separate the role 
of the operations admin and operations engineer from the software 
architect and implementer as a part of their idea of a product.
There is a good reason for that!

It is a fact that the RHEV product doesn't require the sysadmin to know 
how to program in C to operate the system.
If some company requires their sysadmin to know C programming to operate 
this kind of a system it's their decision, it doesn't make it a 
requirement for the definition of the job.

And yes it really helps the employer to have a sysadmin that knows how 
to debug and program in C when they have troubles but it is a bad 
practice to operate IT systems this way.

There is a big difference between software operations engineer to a 
software design engineer, and while it is very common to confuse between 
them it is a fact that these are two different roles.

Helpdesk should basically just cover on the gap of knowledge that the 
end user have for software basic operation, if you call it drone it 
doesn't change the role definition.
I think that sometimes for a linux sysadmin the difference between an 
operator role to a programmer one is being lost due to non other then 
bad industry habits.

It is a very very bad habit to create products that your commitment to 
the perfection of the product tend to be low.

I think that a computerized system administrator role is one while a 
Linux\unix system administrator can be under this category.
Once you switch off the assumption that all computerized systems are 
Linux alike and also switch off the assumption that a product should not 
be simple to operate and config you might see that a basic understanding 
of programming doesn't mean that it is a requirement for daily operations.

And I will finish with a question:
Why companies wants their sysadmin to know c\c++\java\ruby\python\others 
? Why IT roles in many cases have a requirement that tends to stretch 
the employee to extreme knowledge?

I will not answer that and will leave you to maybe answer that, but I 
will add that a Cisco network engineer is not required to know C but to 
just learn how to program a Cisco device using a shell, and by the way 
it is the same for traffic lights systems, as an operator and engineer 
you are not required to know C.

All The Bests,
Eliezer

On 29/09/2015 20:38, Reco wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:03:57PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> * And if indeed the basic requirement from a system operator would be "a
>> programmer" then it would suck to be a sysadmin for many.
>
> -1.
>
> Being a sysadmin requires task automation (among other things), and
> that inevitably boils down to some programming skills at least.
>
> Inability to grasp basics of programming can produce only a helpdesk
> drone, not a real specialist.
>
> Reco
>

Thread

Deleting i386 packages Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-09-22 05:40 +0200
  Re: Deleting i386 packages Himanshu Shekhar <irm2015006@iiita.ac.in> - 2015-09-22 06:30 +0200
  Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 08:50 +0200
    Re: Deleting i386 packages mudongliang <mudongliangabcd@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 09:50 +0200
      Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 14:40 +0200
        Re: Deleting i386 packages mudongliang <mudongliangabcd@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 15:10 +0200
          Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:20 +0200
            Re: Deleting i386 packages Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.id.au> - 2015-09-30 01:20 +0200
        Re: Deleting i386 packages Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2015-09-22 15:30 +0200
          Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 16:10 +0200
            Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-24 06:50 +0200
              Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 12:30 +0200
                Re: Deleting i386 packages Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-09-25 12:00 +0200
                Re: Deleting i386 packages Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 14:30 +0200
                Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-27 09:20 +0200
                Re: Deleting i386 packages Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2015-09-27 10:50 +0200
                Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-27 12:30 +0200
                Re: Deleting i386 packages Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-09-29 07:00 +0200
                Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-29 18:40 +0200
                Re: Deleting i386 packages Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-09-30 14:00 +0200
                Re: Deleting i386 packages Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-30 14:20 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again (was: Deleting  i386 packages) Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 12:50 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-27 14:00 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-09-27 22:20 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-27 23:30 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-29 18:10 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:40 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-09-29 21:00 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-29 22:50 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-09-30 06:30 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Heracles <heracles@iprimus.com.au> - 2015-09-30 07:50 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> - 2015-10-01 05:00 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:40 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 20:20 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 08:30 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 10:40 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-09-30 13:30 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-09-30 13:40 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 17:00 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-01 09:50 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-30 19:30 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-09-30 19:40 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2015-09-30 19:50 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-09-30 21:50 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 22:00 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 01:00 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again tomas@tuxteam.de - 2015-10-01 09:50 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 00:10 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-09-29 22:40 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-09-30 06:00 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-09-30 10:30 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 10:50 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2015-09-30 06:00 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 11:00 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2015-09-30 14:40 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2015-10-01 06:40 +0200
                Re: [OT] Free software vs non-free, here we go again Bob Holtzman <holtzm@cox.net> - 2015-09-29 23:00 +0200
  Re: Deleting i386 packages Mirko Parthey <mirko.parthey@web.de> - 2015-09-22 14:40 +0200

csiph-web