> And that's why I now offer up network 101 classes (and a series of > others) to *anyone* who wants to attend.
Mick, I'm glad you made this comment and that you've started doing this. How are the classes going and what impact has it had on Carl and the organization? I've thought a lot about this idea right here, but never gotten off my butt to put one together. I've worked with a few Clueless Carls and while I can cuss about them real good, I've never done much other than give a terse lecture on why X was a really bad idea. So to jack the thread even further, perhaps I'm not doing enough to make sure Carl doesn't remain clueless. Carl has the major portion of that responsibility, but for the good of my sanity and the organization, some 101 classes may be in order. Jason On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Michael Douglas <[email protected]>wrote: > Yes, specialists with a lack of skill in other areas can be truly > dangerous. > > Funny & true story (details of where this happened omitted to protect > the guilty) > > One day I saw our IDS system explode with alarms about some truly > horrific network traffic, at the same time, our host monitoring system > started showing web servers winking out of existence. Evil was afoot. > > As I was about to run to the server room, a DBA we'll call Clueless > Carl came over. And asked the most horrifying question I've ever > heard. > > Carl: "Mick, I just ran into a strange ping problem. When I send > pings that are over 2.5 meg in size I'll get a response back once... > but then the rest time out." > Me: (I made a squeaking "urk" type sound) ... what? > Carl: You know ping. I need to test the network. Ping's how you do it. > Me: well... sometimes. Did you say 2.5 Meg? As in megabytes? via ping? > Carl: (clearly exasperated) YEAH! We're having trouble with the TPS > reports... some of the results don't display in the browser right. > Looking at the table the result set is a bit under 2.5 Meg. So I > wanted to see why the network can't handle data sets that large. We > have a problem here! > Me: You have no idea! (evil grin) > > > And that's why I now offer up network 101 classes (and a series of > others) to *anyone* who wants to attend. > > > Sorry to thread jack, but it was too good to pass up! > - Mick > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Raffi > Jamgotchian<[email protected]> wrote: > > That's precisely what's wrong about your argument. Your asumption is > > that the generalist doesn't have deep understanding in any subject. > > > > A good generalist can do the work of many people. But the same good > > generalist needs to know when to call in for help. > > > > In my experience, present company excluded of course, specialists that > > are typically so narrow in thinking cause more issues than not. > > Because they don't completely understand the affects on surrounding > > disciplines. > > > > ---- > > Raffi > > > > On Aug 16, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Shane Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I think you are going to have incompetent people at either side of the > >> spectrum. > >> You could argue that generalists are multi-handed specialists / or > >> that specialists do not have sufficient understanding of surround > >> areas. > >> You could also argue that generalists do not have enough technical > >> understanding or patience to pursue a given specialism. > >> > >> It ultimately comes down to how must time and effort people are > >> willing to invest in understanding their acclaimed subject. IMHO, you > >> can not encapsulate peoples skill level at a 100 foot view of there > >> depth into the subject. You need people in both sides of the field. > >> Generalists to have enough knowledge to understand where organisations > >> should focus efforts. > >> Specialists to focus on that area and have deep technical knowledge of > >> that area to ensure a quality work is performed. > >> > >> In my view, generalists make good sales people, specialists get > >> recognised in the security field for there technical achievements. > >> > >> Shane > >> > >> > >> 2009/8/16 Raffi Jamgotchian <[email protected]>: > >>> Hear hear. Whether a generalist or a specialist, hubris will bite > >>> you. > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> Raffi > >>> > >>> On Aug 15, 2009, at 10:35 PM, Michael Douglas <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> jack of all trades messed up the environment > >>>> > >>>> OK this is the one area where I wasn't too clear on the earlier > >>>> thread. I'm assuming that you are competent in everything that you > >>>> say you're going to do. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. There > >>>> are many Jerks of All Trades who will mess things up badly. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For those who mentioned it above, yes being a generalist does tend > >>>> to > >>>> get you in the small and medium sized businesses... but there are > >>>> exceptions... take my day job for instance. For those of you who > >>>> don't know, I work at OCLC -- a non-profit library coop. We're what > >>>> I'd consider large. We have over 72,000 libraries in our > >>>> collective. > >>>> We have a database with holdings information on about 1.2 billion > >>>> (yes > >>>> billion) records (books and other stuff). We have a few thousand > >>>> servers... yet they hired me... A generalist! > >>>> > >>>> I'm a generalist... but a big part of my ability to get things > >>>> done is > >>>> admitting what I don't know. For instance, a big part of my skill > >>>> with forensics is how I DON'T mess up data. If things get to hairy > >>>> for me, I can wrap things up and call in folks who are better than > >>>> me > >>>> (and remember, there ALWAYS is someone better than you -- thinking > >>>> otherwise is the first step on the path to destruction) > >>>> > >>>> knowing when to sit down and hack or when to walk away is probably > >>>> the > >>>> greatest skill anyone in computers can have! > >>>> > >>>> - Mick > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:42 PM, John Navarro<[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Good point Tim! > >>>>> Robert, I do think that a "jack of all trades" type will fit in > >>>>> better to > >>>>> smaller companies, whereas the specialized, from my experience, > >>>>> seem to have > >>>>> a better chance at getting into larger corporations. It was never > >>>>> my > >>>>> intention to be "specialized", but having worked at a firewall > >>>>> vendor it was > >>>>> just easier to find those opportunities that required a specific > >>>>> skillset. > >>>>> Of course it could be that the jack of all trades messed up the > >>>>> environment > >>>>> and they needed someone specialized to come in and clean it up ;) > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Tim Krabec <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Don't forget your specialization does not have to be computer/ > >>>>>> program > >>>>>> related > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You don't have to specialize in "forensic analysis of devorak > >>>>>> keyboards > >>>>>> for AS/400 systems > >>>>>> emulating Apple IIc systems" > >>>>>> You could specialize in database recovery for small businesses. > >>>>>> Or BCP & > >>>>>> DR for law offices or real estate companies. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Tim Krabec > >>>>>> Kracomp > >>>>>> 772-597-2349 > >>>>>> smbminute.com > >>>>>> kracomp.blogspot.com > >>>>>> www.kracomp.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Pauldotcom mailing list > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > >>>>>> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Pauldotcom mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > >>>>> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Pauldotcom mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > >>>> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Pauldotcom mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > >>> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pauldotcom mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > >> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Pauldotcom mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Pauldotcom mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com > -- irc: Tadaka Twitter: Jason_Wood jwnetworkconsulting.com
_______________________________________________ Pauldotcom mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
