Thanks Gilbert, see my responses: On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr. < mailing-lists@phoenixinternet.net> wrote: > I will add my 2 cents ... > > I read all the posts. Experience on a specific system will allow a person > to respond quickly but will not allow them to specifically solve a problem, > especially if they are not as educated on a system as they think they are. > If the Server is the documentation, you are riding by the seat of your > pants and it will catch upto you. In addition, a business is more nimble > and can accomplish more if there is redundancy in the understanding of > systems in place. You must have a well documented system/process that a > competent person can follow and update. > > I will now move my comments a little more off topic ... > > Now answering this as an employer hiring staff, experience counts for me; > but I put more weight in an employee's education, ability to be agile, > solve problems, communicate clearly, and work with others. I expect to > train new staff from the bottom up on a system/process. > > Now we are off topic and maybe offending ... > > Some may disagree with me or feel I maybe belittling their career, but > most jobs in IT, in my opinion, can be done by almost anyone if they are in > the right mindset and given proper training. IT is not magic. > I agree; it is not magic. This can be taught as part of standard process and "obnosis" or learning by observation, but only to those who have an inherent ability. Great programmers are BORN; not trained, but good systems administrators and systems engineers are using a set techniques (and a lot of typing/clicking) to do an excellent job. However, it is not easy and cannot be trivialized. > > > Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr. > Phoenix Internet > > > > On 5/16/2013 9:03 PM, Lisa Kachold wrote: > > Across the board, the number 1 worst attribute that I see working with the > PLUG, technology teams, and mentoring (at or around year 3 in academics, > and year 3 - 10 in IT/linux professionalism) = arrogance. > > What exactly is arrogance anyway. Where is this found? Why? > > It's the place in the discussion where one person dominates assuming > that their position or knowledge is greater (without investigation). This > is also referred to as "OneUpManShip". > It's the place in the presentation where students and PLUG peers write off > the person who has taken on the role to "present on the subject" based on > their ability to verbally spiel acronyms. This is referred to "Minimizing". > It's the place in the team dissemination of project roles and tasks where > a member's enthusiasm is downplayed based on experience. This is referred > to "Dues Hierarchy". > This is the place in the interview where the employer fails to realize all > they need to do is very the work history, since everything for a Linux > professional is motivated by and driven from an ethical systems > administrator viewpoint (not any communications with or responsibilities > disseminated from the employer); just as we are woken from sleep to work on > or check systems; and jazzed beyond belief by a well engineered hardware > server like IBM Blade (can you say Fiber channel switched backplane?)... > > There are a great many examples where an ego based emotional assumption > of or judgement is placed on our peers, our work, and even ourselves at one > point or another. > > The ability to understand linux systems requires a certain type of > systemic theory; which can be daunting for some people; such systems > integration can be hard to troubleshoot [and successfully negotiate within] > without inherent abilities but can be done with a great deal of complex > experience, however this is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. So the people who do well > at what we do, are usually those that find that they inherently find this > easy. > > It is, however, far from easy, since most of us work long hours, without > adequate physical exercise and balanced stress free environments. The sheer > amount of responsibility and ultimate reliance in all shops on the unique > abilities of the Unix/Linux systems administrator are daunting to most once > they get a full view. > > However, we each learn standard process applied across the OSI stack > and/or fed through the kernel/memory/processor for systems or DevOps > applications performance and integration, security or troubleshooting. > > Standard process, which includes a few easy to learn rules, relies on > logs and linux tools, completely supplants any experience, past systems > history knowledge (available on/in the server), most visio documentation or > RunBooks (which should not exist unless something cannot be known by server > view alone). > > Ironically, to people who are not linux-ish, the statement that "The > Server IS the documentation" seems incredibly arrogant, when in fact, it > simplifies all the arrogant posturing and 7 deadly sin based profit from > the misunderstanding of unix/linux administration and engineering. > > We all intimately understand the concept of "obnosis" or Knowledge by > Observation - rather than what is imparted via formal rote learning and > scholastic pursuit. > > What do you think? Is the adage "There is NO substitute for experience" > correct or can anyone using standard process (as opposed to documented > process) and NIX command line skills (yet bringing no experience) get to > the finish line at the same time? > > http://wiki.obnosis.com > -- > > (503) 754-4452 Android > (623) 239-3392 Skype > (623) 688-3392 Google Voice > ** > it-clowns.com > Chief Clown > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > -- (503) 754-4452 Android (623) 239-3392 Skype (623) 688-3392 Google Voice ** it-clowns.com Chief Clown