On Feb 24, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 13:03 -0700, Alex Dean wrote:
On Feb 24, 2009, at 12:10 PM, Craig White wrote:
and then you're be another administrator who never took the time to
understand the underlying technologies, with no derived skills to
troubleshoot problems and no study why other parts/daemons might be
better suited for your particular needs.
There are always limits to this argument. How many people who install
a linux server actually understand the kernel, or even any C code at
all? What if I don't know assembly? I put myself in that boat, but I
don't think that makes me some know-nothing schlub with no interest in
solving problems.
The realm of "things I could learn" is always infinitely larger than
"things I have learned", and if you get diverted into the minutae of
every possible permutation of every software package, you'll not be a
very effective as a system administrator or in any other field.
You weaken your argument when you get this pedantic and insist that
everyone take your view on things to this degree.
----
yes and no
let's say that you want to extend ldap for hooks to new software. You
will never get it done unless you understand how it works. If LDAP
database crashes (i.e. power failure or unceremonious shutdown), how are
you going to repair it if you don't know how it works? (I see this too
often when people try to do turnkey LDAP setups).
let's say that Zimbra package uses exceptionally week implementation of
amavisd that allows a lot of spam to pass through and boss says he wants
a higher level of filter. There's so many ways that a 'packaged' system
can come up short but it does provide an easy buy-in to the technology.
That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good way to go.
It's not that I insist that everyone take my view on these things - it's
just a recognition of where/how/why open source came to be as it is.