[ILUG] Interesting article
bbrelin at openapp.biz
Thu Apr 28 20:22:55 IST 2005
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 19:59, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Braun Brelin (bbrelin at openapp.biz):
> > The other problem that we at OpenApp see with Linux deployments is
> > that the person in charge of doing this will operate the Linux systems
> > as a black box and nobody else knows what's going on. This leads to
> > problems if/when the person leaves.
> What's the downside? The Linux box will probably do its job without
> admin interference^Wassistance until doomsday or hard drive failure,
> whichever comes first. If the new guy is smart enough to leave the box
> the hell alone (other than following the "To add accounts, To remove
> accounts, To change passwords" sheets his predecessor left in the
> operations binder), then the firm's no worse off, and can always blow a
> small fortune on an MS-Windows-based replacement _later_, if it ever
> thinks it needs to. Meanwhile, that expense has been deferred.
Would that that were true. Unfortunately we've seen situations where
older Linux systems become unstable for one reason or another. I
recently went to a new customer because his named stopped working
correctly. They called us in a bit of a state because no one there know
how to debug these sorts of problems and their Linux admin had left.
> > We've seen sites where people rip out their Linux and go
> > back to MS because the person in question left, their replacement couldn't
> > spell Linux, much less be able to administer it and thus, presto, MS wins
> > again.
> Ah, the predecessor forgot to create that "Administration for Dummies"
> binder. There's your problem.
> > It's important, especially if the company is a fairly small one, that
> > whoever manages the Linux/OSS installation do a couple of things:
> > 1. Document what they've done.
> > 2. Cross-train other IT employees
> Everyone gives lip service to "training", but, at companies where it
> occurs at all, it's often little more than a ritual exercise for people
> who refuse to read documentation. Try holding a brief quiz of employees
> on the subject matter before and after they attend "training", and I'll
> bet that the same people do well both before and after, and likewise the
> people who did poorly before do about the same after.
> For a lot of employees, "training" is a mini-vacation from their
> desks, and the clearing of a mental obstacle they erect against using
> something new: They don't _actually_ understand the thing significantly
> better than before, but no longer have any excuse for refusing to use
> it, because they (and their managers) know they've been "trained".
More information about the ILUG