Re: sysadmin qualifications (Re: apt-get vs. aptitude)
Le 13.10.2013 20:41, Chris Bannister a écrit :
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:11:01AM +0200,
berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:
>If you own a system you control it and can do whatever you like
>with it.
>You can give yourself whatever label you want (sysadmin,
>superuser, top
>dog etc) - it matters not. How about "Debian Despot"?
Oh, of course, if you speak about giving yourself a label, then,
fine. Take the one you want. But, it does not mean that you can
claim to be a professional, or that you can say someone is a
professional.
Nowhere has anyone said that administering your own system makes you
a
professional system administrator.
In my mind, sysadmin is a term to qualify professionals, or people able
to take that role on real organizations, not simply on the family level.
(1)
Take the label you want. But if you take the label of "programmer"
because you can only write a hello world, and will own the source
code. But then do not be surprised if other people gives you the
label of "liar".
WTF! What is this "label" business? Do qualifications exist in your
country?
Of course they do. And they are regarded like if they were everything.
The problem is, that they mean almost nothing in reality.
Someone with a high qualification is not necessarily better than people
without any.
When someone applies for a job, whatever "label" they give
themselves doesn't matter a hoot, if they don't have the necessary
experience/qualifications then they won't get the job.
A quite simplistic vision.
Is the level of corruption in your country an issue in this regard?
I can not judge corruption levels, but, for example, if you have a
friend which works somewhere, it can become suddenly easier to work
there, if he have a good reputation and talk for you.
Another example if is your friend (or family member, of course)
represent a huge client of an enterprise, it can help too. You will be
paid according to your qualifications, of course, and for some works you
will need those qualifications and/or experience anyway, but it makes
things easier.
Easier does not means automatic, of course.
It is the same with sysadmin. You can own your computer, be only
able to install softwares and use those excuses to label yourself a
sysadmin. But then, other people are also free to give you the label
of liar.
Don't confuse "role" and "profession/career". A person can be a
weekend
mechanic (role) but not be a mechanic (profession/career).
(1)
In the sysadmin role, there is much more than simply install things.
Most people I know do not even upgrade their systems, if the system does
not do it by default.
Luckily, windows have automatic updates.
Still, most people I know installs lot of crap, without understanding
anything about that. Sometimes, they do not even understand that they
are installing something.
How could I consider those people as sysadmin? It would be an insult to
the real ones.
It is exactly like considering the 1st guy able to "build" an excel
file with 3 formulas make by the software (you know, when you ask it to
interpret your actions to make a formula, which can result in more
"if-then-else" that the software can show... I have seen that, it really
exists. I had to use gnumeric to be able to see the entire formula, and
to paste it in a real text editor to understand it...), and call him
programmer. Or to say that someone only able to change his car's oil
with the oil someone gave him/her (so, not being able to check if it is
the right oil considering the motor and the temperature of where he/she
lives) is a mechanic.
Yes, that person would be able to take very minor, trivial parts of the
role, but not the whole role. Really, maintaining your tools is part of
their usage. So I would name people able to install his system a user.
Maybe advanced user, depending on the mood and the guy. Not an admin.
I'm not a mechanic. I'm a car user. I'm not a sysadmin, I am a computer
user (well, not strictly true since I do some programming)
The truth here is simple: you are not what you want, only other
people can define who you really are.
That is very sad that you think this way.
I think it's how things work. People can want to be something a lot,
being sysadmin or electrician or whatever, they won't become one by
simple will. They need to work to become something. By work, I do not
mean have a job, of course.
And if you effectively *are* something but nobody recognize you, then I
do not think you will think to be one yourself.
At least, it is my opinion, and I can not see why it is sad.
Reply to: