Yo, Ken...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Apr 07, 2008 9:06 AM EDT |
I am amazed that anybody would think Microsoft doesn't care about FOSS and the threat it represents. Sound like somebody ought to "Get the Facts". Any veteran of the 90s Server Wars should know better than that. Microsoft charged up the hill with NT and promises of lower costs on commodity equipment, and cheaper personnel -- MCSEs -- who could handle your servers alongside your desktops. FOSS blew their costs arguments to pieces by running on the same commodity even cheaper and allowing Unix shops to leverage their hard-won skills into competitive advantages. It's true that MCSEs are a dime a dozen and good Linux admins are not, but ROI is definitely better on the Linux side. A bargain on a piece of crap, after all, is not a bargain. They wanted to own the server room by now. They don't. They are very aware of why not. |
| softwarejanitor Apr 07, 2008 10:22 AM EDT |
MCSEs may be a dime a dozen, but good Windows admins are not. They are just as expensive, and in some cases more so than Linux/UNIX admins. Worse than that, in most cases I've seen a lot more servers are required in Windows shops to do the same workload and Windows servers usually require more maintenance work to keep running properly than Linux/UNIX servers. That tends to mean that more admins are required so even if they were cheaper individually, the total cost may be higher if several are required instead of just one or two. |
| helios Apr 07, 2008 12:52 PM EDT |
You know, SWJ raises a point I am not comfortable with and I thought it was only a possibility. Until last week. Recently, a division of a major dairy distributor changed over to Linux on the desktop and server under HeliOS Solutions guidance. I found out last week during a follow up visit with that office manager that they were able to let one sysadmin go due to two factors. 1.) they didn't need him anymore...his main job was to either remotely or on-site reboot their server every midnight and 2.) He groused constantly about not knowing enough about Linux. Now, If I had been that guy, I'da been hitting the google pages and forums every night to find out just what it was I am supposed to to. Mid and upper management types are truly without a shred of a clue when it comes to this stuff and most figure that a server is a server...Linux-Shminux...it's all the same. When he boasted that this new server didn't need to be rebooted on a daily basis or even a quarterly basis, someone making their money from bonuses and corporate savings awards decided to look into this guy's needed-ness. One loses a paycheck, another gains a bonus. It's hell when your boss has a financial incentive to kill your position. Friggin' bottom feeder. So the Sysadmin? He was let go. Is that going to be an affect of what we do? It's beginning to look like it. Now I just have to find a way to become comfortable with the inevability. h |
| jdixon Apr 07, 2008 1:01 PM EDT |
> Is that going to be an affect of what we do? If you presume a static workplace, yes. However, few workplaces are static. Do you really think that if the guy had gone out of his way to learn Linux and try to find new things to do with it that the result would have been the same? |
| thenixedreport Apr 07, 2008 1:11 PM EDT |
I wouldn't think so. After all, if an organization becomes quite huge, an admin would be necessary, hence why the root account is an integral part of most distros. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 07, 2008 1:36 PM EDT |
> Is that going to be an affect of what we do? Yes, but all change is dangerous. But there is a silver lining well understood in Austrian economics. This "displaced worker" was unhappy. He was not good at his job. The boss was unhappy. Resources were inefficiently being spent on his salary. Keeping him on would have been another example of the "Broken Windows Fallacy." Now those resources can be spent more efficiently within the company. The boss is happier. The worker is free now to persue a job where he will be more effective and valued, and himself happier. Sure there were more jobs for buggy-whip makers before the automobile, but is anyone going to argue that the car industry and everything that went with it employs fewer people than who made buggy-whips? |
| softwarejanitor Apr 07, 2008 1:37 PM EDT |
I can see your point helios... except that guy who was let go is probably one of the "dime-a-dozen" Windows admins, not someone who is "good"... you know, the kind who only knows how to point-and-drool his way through the simple tasks but has trouble showing creativity, adaptation or doing research to solve the complex problems. While it would be great if companies these days were willing to send people to training so for example in his case, he could learn Linux admin... that isn't the way it usually works -- these days most employers are only interested in hiring and retaining people who already have the exact set of skills they need. FWIW, a fairly large percentage of the Windows admins that I've known who I would consider good also know Linux, even the ones who only use it on their own time, not paid on the job. He may still have gotten let go due to not having enough work to do even if he'd taken the initiative to learn some new skills on his own, but maybe not. His chances of scoring a new job in today's weak and difficult job market would be better for sure if he had skills both with Windows and Linux. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 07, 2008 1:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:Is that going to be an affect of what we do? No. Here lies another consultancy and possibly revenue opportunity for you. Educate management that IT is an asset, not a cost center. In your position this should be a *lot* easier to do than for the most of us because you already have management listening to you in the companies that you consult for. Trying to convince management of this is probably the longest and hardest battle that IT has been waging over the past few decades. It transcends the barriers of FOSS versus closed source and goes above the OS wars. It's geeks versus suits. Freeing up IT workers is a *good* thing. Less maintenance means more time to try out new stuff, develop the corporate infrastructure and save cost in the long run. Freeing up IT people means that next time they don't have to hire an expensive outside consultant like yourself :-) Don't worry, they will still hire you. New projects and new developments also mean new questions and new opportunities and areas to consult in. Convince management that they don't need you and they will hire you every time. IT touches on every part of the corporation. More IT means more efficient processes which result in lower overall costs (up to a point of course. No sense in having 10 IT people in a 15 man non-tech company). A modern IT infrastructure and processes combined with good workers means you can be cheaper and more flexible than the competition. How much exactly depends from branch to branch but there are gains possible everywhere. Take logistics for example. Do you really think any logistics company can stand a chance against DHL or FexEd if they were still using paper instead of IT infrastructure to plan and track all deliveries? This probably would not have saved your IT worker's job, simply because he refused to learn Linux. But it could have resulted in the company hiring a Linux-savy IT person to replace him instead of just giving the other guy a bonus. The effect of what you do could be more jobs for Linux people. More demand means higher wages, which means more people learning Linux to fulfill these well paying jobs. ...and thus goes the story of Helios single-handedly saving the American IT industry from extinction by outsourcing to cheap labour ;-) |
| kingttx Apr 07, 2008 2:33 PM EDT |
Sounds like a classic case of "Who moved my cheese?" syndrome. Being too afraid to try something different, the guy finds himself irrelevant and facing a choice. Does he adapt and overcome (HUAH! for us Army guys) by downloading and learning Linux from the ground up, or does he kick against the goads and resist the change thus making himself dispensable? Guess we know that answer. ;) |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 07, 2008 2:56 PM EDT |
"Who moved my cheese?" was one of the few books in my business engineering course that I actually enjoyed reading :-) |
| helios Apr 07, 2008 4:39 PM EDT |
I must run in the wrong circles (I tend to run in circles anyway). The only time cheese comes up in our conversations is when someone asks who Cut The Cheese. Way to go helios....interject bathroom humor into a perfectly educational conversation. sorry... And thanks for the insight. That's why I live in this neighborhood...yuze guyz is smart. Now, excuse me, ahem...I must prepare for the 2nd annual Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit tomorrow. Looking at the list of attendees, I can see others that just might bring whoopie cushions as well. I hear SJVN is a wildman at the socials afterwards. h |
| tuxchick Apr 07, 2008 4:43 PM EDT |
Gadzooks Ken, what have you been eating?? Open a window and hang your butt outside, geez! |
| gus3 Apr 07, 2008 9:50 PM EDT |
@Sander:Quoting:Freeing up IT workers is a *good* thing. Less maintenance means more time to try out new stuff, develop the corporate infrastructure and save cost in the long run. Freeing up IT people means that next time they don't have to hire an expensive outside consultant like yourself :-) Don't worry, they will still hire you.Quite the optimist. Once management thinks of IT as an asset, their mentality becomes, "Okay, how can I drive up the value of this asset?" The life of the sysadmin becomes a living hell, as the suits start piling on more and more duties. The justification falls under that catch-all job description phrase, "Other duties as assigned." Well, I won't play that game. I will not be responsible for Windows systems, and this is not negotiable. If a prospective employer (or even a current employer) cannot live with that, then I will take my talents elsewhere. This does not mean I will not use Windows systems, just that when it breaks (when, not if), someone else is responsible for fixing it. My rationale? Two things: 1. I don't consider propping up a "broken by design" OS a form of job security. 2. A stuffed suit that bases a platform decision on eye-candy and vacuous advertising is not someone I want as my boss. And that is why I'm working in a factory. When my co-workers ask why I'm there, instead of pounding a keyboard somewhere else, I explain the above points to them. If they still don't get it, I just remind them about the BSOD. The look of "ah, yes, now I understand" is inevitable. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 07, 2008 10:09 PM EDT |
I think you missed my point Gus. Piling on new duties isn't making use of assets. It's just another way of cutting costs. If you're doing these new duties then someone else isn't doing them and they can be let go. The real value of IT as an asset is that they have free time to experiment, design and implement better solutions. The company I work for has a policy that you can spend up to 10% of your time on anything you want. This includes IT people. It means that we can do things like installing and playing with various FOSS Exchange replacements. The result is that we'll be moving to Zarafa soon and this saving a bundle on Exchange licensing. This move is part of "work" so doesn't count to that 10% anymore. Now we're playing with Asterisk PBX to see what it can do and soon we'll start playing with Jabber to see it it can replace MSN around the office. Our SugarCRM installation came from similar experiments (and ended up replacing a very expensive proprietary CRM system). I've spent quite a bit of that 10% to learn how to use Blender over the last few months. There's your real value of IT: The time to learn, play and experiment with new technologies. Some of these are bound to help your company along in the long run. |
| helios Apr 08, 2008 4:28 AM EDT |
And that is why I'm working in a factory.... Bingo! As of this time, I drive a truck for a living...Until HeliOS Solutions becomes self-supporting, it's what I do and I do it for just exactly the reasons you mention. Here in Austin, while Linux is gaining a fairly impressive foothold, it is precarious at best. I get the same questions...but you know? Once I "pitch" my co-workers on the benefits of using Linux, they seem to be more open to change than those who work in the field. I won't "fix" their windows machines outside of the permanent fix of installing Linux. You might be surprised how many have opted for that to happen. |
| softwarejanitor Apr 08, 2008 5:49 AM EDT |
I hear you helios... while I am currently employed as a software developer here in Austin I mostly work on proprietary *nixes (AIX and Solaris) and my job is scheduled to be eliminated once the company can wind down the office here and close it. My employer bought a competitor on the east coast that is all Windows based and they are switching all the clients to their product. Thankfully that may take up to a year. Unfortunately the IT job market around here is still slow to non-existent especially for open systems work, so I am not sure what I will be doing once this job runs out. I may be driving a truck too. |
| NoDough Apr 08, 2008 9:46 AM EDT |
Sander, I would love to see an article about the 10% time policy of your company and the benefits it has manifested. If I can show ROI possibilities to my management, they may consider similar policies. |
| herzeleid Apr 08, 2008 11:00 AM EDT |
> or does he kick against the goads One can only hope he would have a damascus road experience.... |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 08, 2008 12:22 PM EDT |
@NoDough: I've added it to my shortlist of article ideas. Not sure when I get round to it (I'm finishing up an article on my RAID benchmark first) but it shouldn't take too long. I'll have to discuss it with my boss though. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!