+- -+
| I'll preface everything I'm about to say by saying: |
| a) I don't work "in the real world". Academia has considerable |
| advantages :) |
| b) I'm not sure I completely understand the setup |
| c) this is all IMHO, based on the (not that) limited information |
| available. |
+- -+
This sounds like a communications problem, specifically with your "support
mgr" (SM) and "head of operations" (HoO). You say that your HoO is not an
IT person. Does he appreciate this? If he does, then he will have to
base his decissions on information supplied by the SM and "development
mgr" (DM). Decisions such as type and location of the servers (for
example) should either be make by HoO (based on information supplied by SM
and DM) or at least OKed by him. Either way those pieces of information
should have been in his possession. If your SM is doing his job properly,
he will have also got these pieces of information too and should have
passed the information on to you, so you could evaluate IP-address
requirements, which table to put the servers on, etc and also give you the
operatunity to give feedback (such as Linux is a much better choice for
you)
On a slightly more practical protecting-one's-backside note, if you have a
spare machine, you can subnet off the NT servers as a DMZ, running
something like a filter-bridge. This is an "invisible" bridging node that
also does packet-filtering, so you can protect your core linux servers
from any rouge NT machine without anyone being any the wiser. OpenBSD can
do this easily, Linux can too (I think), but I've not tried it. (Actually
I've not tried the OpenBSD either, but I've got a mate who has)
On the business side, you can also try to "correct" this lack of
communication by pointing out (without going into a rant :) some of the
pitfalls they have to be careful of (should have thought of). Things like
CodeRed are good examples:
1. What happens to company's "good name" (== future business)
2. A vulnerability that was one month old was used (we must be _much_
more upto date that this)
3. Email (and other) virus: sirdir virus (or whatever it is called)
that emails random (ie could be mission critical) files to random
people (ie could get forwarded to competition).
4. What is usage policy WRT installing and maintaining software.
5. How do we inforce this policy.
6. Who is going to inforce this policy.
7. What do we do if something goes wrong.
(iterate that question over all possible things that can go wrong)
[delete questions that have already been asked]
Once you've said this, point out that these are all questions you've came
up with (and that have to be sorted out) _after_ management have made the
decisions (or OKed the decisions). Then ask the question: how do we make
sure that next time all these questions get answered _before_ management
make their decisions.
I read somewhere that companies that expand from small scale (<5
employees) to medium generally go through a crisis in structure and
communication. It sound like your company is having these problems. It
might well survive due to rank and file peddling like mad trying to get
the company afloat whilst managament get a clue, but it might not. If they
make too many mistakes, people will get fustrated and leave and the
company will collapse.
Bottom line, if you don't feel like you can work in your environment (and
you can't change it) try to move to somewhere where you can. (I know,
easier said than done)
HTH, anyway
Paul.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Tam McLaughlin wrote:
> I apologise if this is too much off topic and too long as it involves
> company politics.
>
> I would be interested to know from other sys admins how much control and
> say
> they have in the decision making processes of new hardware/systems.
> Although I have been in my present position for about 5 years, I do not
> have
> experience of how other companies support/sys admin departments work.
>
> Recent events at my company have made me seriously question whether I am
> in the
> correct place and using my skills to their fullest.
>
> Our IT dept is structured as follows:
>
> Head of operations (not an IT man)
> | |
> support mgr development mgr
> | |
> 2 support/sysadmins 7 developers
>
> I am the sysadmin guy in charge of our linux/unix servers, network,
> firewall,
> informix database servers.
>
> The company have been talking of setting up a small internal call
> centre. The
> development mgr has been involved in this and support have been given
> little
> info on this. I was on holiday today but found out that we got 5 mins
> notice of
> delivery of 2 NT servers for the call centre and wanted a space in the
> server room.
> Another example is that the company are looking into remote working for
> salesmen.
> I only got asked into the project team 'cause I made a fuss about It
> implications
> but the IT aspect has been put under control of the "telephony/comms
> track mgr"
> who happens to be the property services mgr. I am increasingly finding
> that IT
> are not taken seriously enough (ok my boss just agrees to do what is
> asked).
>
> Surely this is the wrong way to run a company?
> It are very important to remote workers e.g. pgp, access to servers.
> How can u bring in a call centre without consulting the people who know
> about the network infrastructure etc. How can a development mgr who was
> a
> mainframe programmer and does not keep up-to-date on technology have
> control
> of the IT aspect of a call centre project w/o involving sysadmin?
> I believe the call centre project will download data from our informix
> db each night
> onto the NT servers which will run SQL server. Surely me, as dba should
> be consulted
> and not just expected to look after NT, SQL server which i know nothing
> about>
> Ok, I can learn, but who is going to look after the 6 unix/linux
> servers, firewall,
> tune the database engine, set up proper network IDS/monitoring etc.
>
> Is this normal?
> Do you have input into projects?
> Ok, if our company want a call centre and the NT choice is the best,
> then fine,
> we cant really complain as we are here to support the companies business
> but we
> should at least be given a bit more warning that 5 minutes for a server
> delivery
> and config. I will say that I will not be responsible for the servers,
> but I cannot
> say that I will have nothing to do with it. I obviously have to supply
> IP addresses,
> domains etc but is it reasonable for me to insist they do not get
> connected to our
> network until I know what software will be running and what service
> packs have been
> applied etc?
>
> Apologies if this was not the place for my rant, but I do not personally
> know
> any other sys admins to discuss this with.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
> http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Millar yo-yo, n. :
Particle Physics Theory Group Something that is occasionally
Department of Physics and Astronomy up but normally down.
University of Glasgow, (see also Computer)
Glasgow G12 8QQ, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scotland +44 (0)141 330 4717
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lug.org.uk http://www.linuxportal.co.uk
http://www.linuxjob.co.uk http://www.linuxshop.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------------
