That's funny. We have a similar joke in the development world.
Q: what's a word that means "tightass whiny control freak who thinks computers are best if nobody can actually use them to do anything worthwhile?" A: "Sysadmin"
PArdon my sardonicism, but I've listened to far too many sysadmins malign my profession without any justfication. I've met as many sysadmins who leave gaping security holes in their systems as I have programmers who forget to check their buffers.
I'm also tired of hearing certain sysadmins rant about how the systems are best in their purest form, unsullied by users (seriously, I've heard this) and if it wasn't for those pesky users trying to use the systems to get their jobs done or cure cancer or whatever, they'd all run just fine. While this may be true, this sort of discounts the purpose of having the systems to administer in the first place.
Hah. My torts prof once said, "The law would be such a beautiful, logical, pristine thing if it weren't for lawsuits."
As an admin, a security guy, and attorney, that to me is the epitome of the "stick it in concrete and sink it" security model. Bleh. But please, those buffers, yeah, check them. [grin]
I absolutely hate that attitude. In fact, our security chapter goes through great lengths to emphasize that security is about risk management and usability, not "stick it in concrete".
Where I work, it's mostly developers slamming other developers for their poor security practices.
As a release engineer at $employer I get a little bit of both worlds. I do get sick of users who would rather work around any attempts at standardization and security rather than actually, you know, discussing their needs with their support staff. Ditto with the individuals who would rather cram whatever random bits happen to live on their desktop onto a CD and call it a release instead of actually working with the official (documented, reproducible) build process. On the other hand, $employer corporate IT are total obstructions who are constantly trying to enforce difficult and contradictory policies that literally make all work at my site "illegal". It's just maddening.
> I'm also tired of hearing certain sysadmins rant about how the systems > are best in their purest form, unsullied by users (seriously, I've heard this) > and if it wasn't for those pesky users trying to use the systems to get their > jobs done or cure cancer or whatever, they'd all run just fine.
Gosh, if only someone would write an 800 page book where nearly every page tries to beat that attitude out of their heads. :-)
You might have better luck if you tried beating them with the book itself. Nothing motivates like a blunt object. It will leave them soft and weak and much more open to the theses of the book afterwards.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 05:07 pm (UTC)That's funny. We have a similar joke in the development world.
Q: what's a word that means "tightass whiny control freak who thinks computers are best if nobody can actually use them to do anything worthwhile?"
A: "Sysadmin"
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 05:58 pm (UTC)PArdon my sardonicism, but I've listened to far too many sysadmins malign my profession without any justfication. I've met as many sysadmins who leave gaping security holes in their systems as I have programmers who forget to check their buffers.
I'm also tired of hearing certain sysadmins rant about how the systems are best in their purest form, unsullied by users (seriously, I've heard this) and if it wasn't for those pesky users trying to use the systems to get their jobs done or cure cancer or whatever, they'd all run just fine. While this may be true, this sort of discounts the purpose of having the systems to administer in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 06:15 pm (UTC)My torts prof once said, "The law would be such a beautiful, logical, pristine thing if it weren't for lawsuits."
As an admin, a security guy, and attorney, that to me is the epitome of the "stick it in concrete and sink it" security model. Bleh. But please, those buffers, yeah, check them. [grin]
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 08:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 07:51 pm (UTC)As a release engineer at $employer I get a little bit of both worlds. I do get sick of users who would rather work around any attempts at standardization and security rather than actually, you know, discussing their needs with their support staff. Ditto with the individuals who would rather cram whatever random bits happen to live on their desktop onto a CD and call it a release instead of actually working with the official (documented, reproducible) build process. On the other hand, $employer corporate IT are total obstructions who are constantly trying to enforce difficult and contradictory policies that literally make all work at my site "illegal". It's just maddening.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 07:55 am (UTC)> are best in their purest form, unsullied by users (seriously, I've heard this)
> and if it wasn't for those pesky users trying to use the systems to get their
> jobs done or cure cancer or whatever, they'd all run just fine.
Gosh, if only someone would write an 800 page book where nearly every page tries to beat that attitude out of their heads. :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-11-12 07:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 05:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-11 06:25 pm (UTC)My developers
Date: 2004-11-12 08:44 am (UTC)