|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
For "so called" Windows system administrators | by romandas | 2007-11-29 00:53:09 |
|
And exactly how would YOU do it, oh wise one? | by Havoc | 2007-11-29 04:38:21 |
|
*ahem* | by romandas | 2007-11-29 10:33:01 |
|
But you apparently don't understand | by Havoc | 2007-11-29 10:50:30 |
| Again.. |
by romandas |
2007-11-29 11:08:19 |
I am not talking about environment. I'm talking about lacking personal ability.
There is a certain level of ability and competence required to actually be a systems administrator for any given OS. I am saying that many people titled as "Windows systems administrators" lack those abilities.
I myself use Linux daily. I would never consider calling myself a Linux system administrator, because frankly I do not have what I believe is the minimum level of competence to do the job. I could learn, but I would not seek employment as one unless I felt I could do it.
Now, since you continue to quiz me on environmental issues..
1) Why the heck would anyone continue to use Windows 98? It's been EOL'ed and is extremely vulnerable. I'm guessing there is some legacy app that runs on it that is needed for a business process? If not.. wtf?
2) By 'default-config XP boxes', are you referring to with or without SP2? Without, why wouldn't it work? With it, the admin shares are still enabled and so the task scheduler approach should work. I'm not even going to go into WMI-scripting, or using the Win32 Perl module. Suffice to say that there are ways, unless your environment shoots you in the foot, which again is not relevant to what I said.
3) In a medium-sized network, I wonder at the intelligence of an organization that would cut off the ability for an administrator to do their job remotely. If the systems are not getting updated on a regular basis (and no remote access in a decently-sized environment means exactly that) I shudder at the thought of just how owned that environment is.
As for 'very few sites' allow IT that level of control... not allowing an administrator (who does have the ability otherwise) to do their job effectively is enough material for another rant entirely. What the heck do you do at the Enterprise level, or even mid-level? Heck, how about just 100 machines and 1 or 2 admins? You don't hand-carry the updates; that's what the network is *for*. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
In ref to your questions | by Havoc | 2007-11-29 11:20:33 |
|
I never malign hamstrung techs | by romandas | 2007-11-29 12:20:57 |
|
hamstrung/highstrung | by Havoc | 2007-11-29 12:59:31 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
