At 02:53 PM 2/1/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I refute that as an argument against doing ANYTHING, if it is otherwise
>the right solution. Sysadmins are, or should be, smart enough to figure
>out what their predecessors did. Unix administrators are famous for
>implementing their own ad-hack solutions... most of which were intended to
>be temporary but ended up being permanent. And Unix is far from the only
>universe where this takes place.
>
>Now, I'm not saying that's the right way to engineer a solution, but it's
>very common out there. We all know that these things tend to happen when
>some manager comes down to the IT room and say "we need this to happen
>NOW!" Since they are the source of the problem, management should be
>prepared to hire replacements for help that has left which are capable of
>doing the job, which implies being able to figure out the processes that
>are in place, or at least be able to rip out the old one and replace it
>with something else, if they inherited a broken system. It also implies
>that they should be willing to pay for it. There's an old saying that
>time = money, and that's absolutely true. The faster you need it done,
>the more it will cost...
>
>The right answer is to install a solution that will require as little
>maintenance as possible, and DOCUMENT it.
Derek, Derek, Derek..... There you go again, thinking like a logical,
rational techie ;-) I didn't say the argument was CORRECT. I just said
that it was the way MANGERS see it. There is a MAJOR difference. If they
actually aproached things from a logical standpoint, there would be no such
thing as an NT firewall!!!
>I have a friend who is a civil engineer, and works in traffic planning.
>He'll tell you that you never plan a system around the expected peak
>requirements. That condition should be considered an abberation, and poor
>performance under those conditions should be understood an tolerated.
>Besides which, if you build in capacity for extra traffic, the users will
>find a way to use it.
I have two words for you: BOSTON GRIDLOCK. Civil engeneers.... BAH
>And that's another thing... except for certain kinds of businesses, RAS
>should NOT be considered mission-critical. If you have work to do, and
>your RAS solution is broken, get your ass into the office and do your
>work! Obvious exception is when you have people whose job is to work
>remotely. We have a problem with people demanding remote access (and
>management is holding that up as well...) but the fact is they don't
>really need it. We keep hearing how important or "critical" it is, and it
>just isn't.
>
>Now, I'm not saying it isn't something we want to provide, and I'm also
>not saying it isn't higly beneficial. But mission critical? Bah...
RAS to the desktop, no. It isn't critical. Business-to-Business, on the
other hand, can be quite critical. As for user demanding remacc.... Users
will get what we give them, and they will LIKE IT!!!!
Kenny
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
