[ale] [JOBS] Sr. Systems Administrator positions

[Jim Kinney]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Jeff Hubbs <jeffrey.hubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim Kinney wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Jeff Hubbs <jeffrey.hubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As for what's in the description, it seems to me that if you are being
>>> constrained to using Red Hat, the position isn't exactly "senior."  My
>>> observation has been that RHEL shops take on many of the same
>>> implementation and integration hassles as Windows shops...it wasn't so
>>> much Windows per se that I sought to distance myself from a decade ago
>>> as it was those hassles!
>>>
>>
>> That is also an interesting situation. I have seen "RedHat Shops" do
>> things the hard way because the easy/fast/best way is not an rpm that
>> ships with RedHat. Fear of having to support a tool internally is a
>> situation that hamstrings "single-vendor" organizations in any field.
>>
> Yep.  What I hear from time to time is that RHEL got bought in order to
> run some app in a "supported configuration."  My response to that is
> that the wrong party blinked.  Again, it's a closed-source-world way of
> working.  I would say to an app vendor, why isn't your app cut cleanly
> enough away from OS that it really doesn't matter what I run it under as
> long as some basic library/language/etc. version constraints are met?
> Why am I paying you money to not just give me use of your app but also
> to take away my implementation freedom and increase my support costs and
> admin overhead?
>
>
Also bear in mind most technology purchasing managers do not come from
an Open source background. In their mind, and rightfully so given
their experience and background, all applications must be "supported"
on the OS of choice.

In Linux-land, this has the side effect of relegating a real sysadmin
to being another button-pushing monkey. Thus I tend to say I am a
systems architect rather than a sysadmin. I _build_solutions_.

-- 
-- 
James P. Kinney III