Re: Novice sysadmins (was: Suggestions for a more privacy conscious email provider)

[bzs]

I realize there has been some call to end this thread but if I may add
a little history...

On December 5, 2017 at 06:49 l...@satchell.net (Stephen Satchell) wrote:
 > Indeed.  What Ajit Pai missed in his deliberations for the Dec 14 FCC 
 > vote is that the Internet as we know it was developed under the stern 
 > eyes of the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. 
 > The NSF in particular ran the 'Net like bouncers do in a strip club: 
 > you break the rules, you go.  No argument.

I'm not sure I remember it quite like that, maybe I haven't been in
enough strip clubs.

But it wasn't a big problem. Under DARPA you needed a (generally
military) sponsor and research activity to connect to the ARPAnet so
any threat to that relationship was taken very seriously.

NSFNET was largely a network of university and research institutions
basically without the sponsor requirement (or put another way with NSF
as your rubber-stamp sponsor) so if there were any problem it would be
referred to the institution.

Prior to NSFNET I was involved in putting a 10mb microwave between
Boston Univ and Harvard which completed a high speed loop between
Harvard/MIT/BU.

So several of us at the the three universities involved in
administering the net put together a mailing list to discuss progress
and generally stay in touch.

One of the major topics became:

  If one of MY students (&c) misbehaves on MY network then I know what
  to do. What do I do if one of YOUR students (&c) misbehaves on MY
  network? Is there even process in place?

A few years later, 1989, I began putting the public on the internet
for the first time.

I was called into a videoconference at BBN with Jon Postel and a
couple of DARPA people, I forget who exactly but I remember uniforms.

They wanted to know:

  What happens if one of MY customers misbehaves?

That is, same concern again.

I said honestly I don't really know. I can cancel their account but
there's little stopping them from creating a new account.

Ultimately what I was doing was approved by NSF as an investigation of
exactly this though no one ever followed up.

It's been the same issue for over 30 years.

(end of my comments, rest left for context.)

 > 
 > The original trust model for the Internet was based on this unrelenting 
 > oversight.  You didn't expect Bad Things(tm) because the consequences of 
 > doing them was so severe:  banishment and exile.  Also, the technical 
 > ability required to do Bad Things(tm) wasn't easily won.  Accessing the 
 > 'Net was a PRIVILEGE, not a right.  Abuse at your own peril.
 > 
 > Organizations had experienced sysadmins because it was imperative to the 
 > survival of the connection to the 'Net.  One gained experience by being 
 > apprenticed to some experienced sysadmin.  Today:  not so much.
 > 
 > Indeed, I'm not aware of any certification that applies to system 
 > administrators.  Network administrators have certs that are 
 > well-recognized and accepted.  Mail admins?  Server admins?  The certs 
 > that are out there border on jokes or disguised sale pitches.  (Not 
 > unlike a certain operating system and software product vendor who put 
 > "free" copies into schools to build their marketing base.)
 > 
 > Ok, I'll shut up now.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Jason Hellenthal]

People die all the time in our profession. Loss of job due to major failure… 
self inflicted suicide or even homicide by disgruntled employee due to others 
negligent actions and laziness. It only amplifies and is less reported these 
days that in the dot.com boom era. But the higher the classification the more 
likely its to happen whether its someone else or the person that made the “huge 
mistake”.


But this thread is really out of line and can go on forever. I would encourage 
others to not reply as I will not as well.



> On Dec 6, 2017, at 19:39, Miles Fidelman  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Satchell  wrote:
>> 
>>> What professional engineers you mentioned do can kill people.  I have yet
>>> to hear of anyone dying from a sysadmin or netadmin screwing up. (Other
>>> than dropping something heavy onto someone, using a fork lift
>>> incompetently, or building an unsafe raised floor.).
>>> 
>>> 
> Military networks.  Aviation.  Hospitals.  SCADA.  The list goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra
> 

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Miles Fidelman]

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Satchell  wrote:


What professional engineers you mentioned do can kill people.  I have yet
to hear of anyone dying from a sysadmin or netadmin screwing up. (Other
than dropping something heavy onto someone, using a fork lift
incompetently, or building an unsafe raised floor.).



Military networks.  Aviation.  Hospitals.  SCADA.  The list goes on.



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Sam Oduor]

All industries have risks associated.

In our Sysadmin context - Though I have not heard of any yet - a case
scenario of telesurgery/remote surgery.

In the midst of this operation - a misconfiguration by either a
netadmin(bgp) or sysadmin(dns) resulting into downtime cutting off
communication = catastrophic end results.



On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:56 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Satchell 
> wrote:
>
> > What professional engineers you mentioned do can kill people.  I have yet
> > to hear of anyone dying from a sysadmin or netadmin screwing up. (Other
> > than dropping something heavy onto someone, using a fork lift
> > incompetently, or building an unsafe raised floor.).
> >
>
> I want pictures of the unsafe raised floor.
>
> -Bill
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>



-- 
Samson Oduor

Re: Novice sysadmins

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Satchell  wrote:

> What professional engineers you mentioned do can kill people.  I have yet
> to hear of anyone dying from a sysadmin or netadmin screwing up. (Other
> than dropping something heavy onto someone, using a fork lift
> incompetently, or building an unsafe raised floor.).
>

I want pictures of the unsafe raised floor.

-Bill


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Chuck Anderson]

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 02:18:07PM -0500, Harald Koch wrote:
> On 6 December 2017 at 13:51, Stephen Satchell  wrote:
> 
> > What professional engineers you mentioned do can kill people.  I have yet
> > to hear of anyone dying from a sysadmin or netadmin screwing up.
> >
> 
> Oh c'mon. Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> I work IT for a hospital. Everything I do has the potential to affect
> patient safety, and we do have documented cases of patients dying from IT
> mishaps.
> 
> Perhaps do your research before spouting off more of these unsubstantiated
> claims?

Like the famous case of the Therac-25 machine.  Programmers, not sysadmins, but 
same idea.

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Harald Koch]

On 6 December 2017 at 13:51, Stephen Satchell  wrote:

> What professional engineers you mentioned do can kill people.  I have yet
> to hear of anyone dying from a sysadmin or netadmin screwing up.
>

Oh c'mon. Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

I work IT for a hospital. Everything I do has the potential to affect
patient safety, and we do have documented cases of patients dying from IT
mishaps.

Perhaps do your research before spouting off more of these unsubstantiated
claims?

-- 
Harald

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:51:32AM -0800, Stephen Satchell 
wrote:
> What professional engineers you mentioned do can kill people.  I have 
> yet to hear of anyone dying from a sysadmin or netadmin screwing up. 
> (Other than dropping something heavy onto someone, using a fork lift 
> incompetently, or building an unsafe raised floor.).

Some of the folks on this list run networks that carry 911 phone
calls.  A call not going through may well result in fatalities.

I'm personally torn, I think the "Professional Engineer" things are
75% racket, and 25% good, but I also think the 'net continues to
miss out on the 25% good and could seriously use some of it.

-- 
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Stephen Satchell]

On 12/06/2017 09:27 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 12/6/17 09:16, Nate Metheny wrote:

I've always been more than willing to share knowledge and skill training
with those who show interest and talent; the more qualified and 
interested
people involved, the better, in my opinion. Making the club 
"exclusive" by

requiring thousands of dollars of training and testing is just another
method of control and elitism.



Is it elitism that professional engineers (structural, mechanical, 
civil, etc.) be educated with required experience as a junior engineer 
before they can take the PE exam?


What professional engineers you mentioned do can kill people.  I have 
yet to hear of anyone dying from a sysadmin or netadmin screwing up. 
(Other than dropping something heavy onto someone, using a fork lift 
incompetently, or building an unsafe raised floor.).

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/06/2017 09:27 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 12/6/17 09:16, Nate Metheny wrote:

I've always been more than willing to share knowledge and skill training
with those who show interest and talent; the more qualified and 
interested
people involved, the better, in my opinion. Making the club 
"exclusive" by

requiring thousands of dollars of training and testing is just another
method of control and elitism.



Is it elitism that professional engineers (structural, mechanical, 
civil, etc.) be educated with required experience as a junior engineer 
before they can take the PE exam?



The internet has done pretty well without a guild thus far. The onus for 
regulation should be on the wannabe-guild builders.


Mike

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Seth Mattinen]

On 12/6/17 09:16, Nate Metheny wrote:

I've always been more than willing to share knowledge and skill training
with those who show interest and talent; the more qualified and interested
people involved, the better, in my opinion. Making the club "exclusive" by
requiring thousands of dollars of training and testing is just another
method of control and elitism.



Is it elitism that professional engineers (structural, mechanical, 
civil, etc.) be educated with required experience as a junior engineer 
before they can take the PE exam?

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Nate Metheny]

The day the secret service and the FBI showed up asking me for a network
audit due to suspicious traffic I realized that I need to take abuse@
seriously.

"I'm only the network administrator" didn't go over well.

I've always been more than willing to share knowledge and skill training
with those who show interest and talent; the more qualified and interested
people involved, the better, in my opinion. Making the club "exclusive" by
requiring thousands of dollars of training and testing is just another
method of control and elitism.

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Filip Hruska  wrote:

> I disagree that nobody cares about abuse.
>
> I actually received an abuse report from SES as someone thought it would
> be funny to flag my previous email I sent to this discussion as spam.
> https://i.imgur.com/RgQa2fN.png
>
>
> --
> Filip Hruska
> Linux System Administrator
>
> Dne 12/6/17 v 11:52 Rich Kulawiec napsal(a):
>
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:54:21AM -0700, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
>>
>>> The vast majority of what I've experienced in the last ~20 years has been
>>> people willing to help others who are trying to help themselves.
>>>
>> "Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."
>>
>> If you are trying, make an honest mistake, and are willing to correct it
>>> when others politely let you know, you will quite likely find people
>>> willing
>>> to help you.  Especially if you return the favor in kind.
>>>
>> Yes.  That's how we all get better at this.  And when any of us learn,
>> we all benefit, so it's in our mutual best interest to share knowledge.
>> (I've learned more here than I can measure.  And I'm grateful for it.)
>>
>> If you are being a hooligan and not responding to problems reported to you
>>> or purposefully ~> wantonly doing things to others ... good luck.
>>>
>> And the latter is the problem: we are faced, unfortunately, with massive
>> operations that were designed, built, and deployed without the slightest
>> consideration for responsible behavior toward the rest of the Internet.
>> All the rest of us are paying the price for that arrogance, incompetence
>> and negligence: we're paying for it with DoS/DDoS defenses, with spam
>> and phish defenses, with brute-force attack defenses, with time and
>> money and computing resources,  with complexity, with late nights and
>> early mornings, with annoyed customers, and -- on the occasions when those
>> defenses fail -- devastating consequences for organizations and people.
>>
>> These costs aren't always obvious because they're not highlighted line
>> items in an accounting statement.  But they're real, and they're huge.
>>
>> How huge?  Well, one measure could be found in the observation that
>> there's now an entire -- large and growing -- market segment that
>> exists solely to mitigate the fallout from these operations.
>>
>> And those same massive operations are doing everything they possibly
>> can to avoid hearing about any of this.  That's why abuse@ is effectively
>> hardwired to /dev/null.  And I note with interest that nobody from AWS
>> has had the professionalism to show up in this thread and say "Gosh, we're
>> sorry.  We screwed up.  We'll try to do better.  Can you help us?"
>>
>> Because we would.
>>
>> ---rsk
>>
>>
>


-- 
Nate Metheny
natemeth...@gmail.com

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Filip Hruska]

I disagree that nobody cares about abuse.

I actually received an abuse report from SES as someone thought it would 
be funny to flag my previous email I sent to this discussion as spam.

https://i.imgur.com/RgQa2fN.png


--
Filip Hruska
Linux System Administrator

Dne 12/6/17 v 11:52 Rich Kulawiec napsal(a):

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:54:21AM -0700, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:

The vast majority of what I've experienced in the last ~20 years has been
people willing to help others who are trying to help themselves.

"Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."


If you are trying, make an honest mistake, and are willing to correct it
when others politely let you know, you will quite likely find people willing
to help you.  Especially if you return the favor in kind.

Yes.  That's how we all get better at this.  And when any of us learn,
we all benefit, so it's in our mutual best interest to share knowledge.
(I've learned more here than I can measure.  And I'm grateful for it.)


If you are being a hooligan and not responding to problems reported to you
or purposefully ~> wantonly doing things to others ... good luck.

And the latter is the problem: we are faced, unfortunately, with massive
operations that were designed, built, and deployed without the slightest
consideration for responsible behavior toward the rest of the Internet.
All the rest of us are paying the price for that arrogance, incompetence
and negligence: we're paying for it with DoS/DDoS defenses, with spam
and phish defenses, with brute-force attack defenses, with time and
money and computing resources,  with complexity, with late nights and
early mornings, with annoyed customers, and -- on the occasions when those
defenses fail -- devastating consequences for organizations and people.

These costs aren't always obvious because they're not highlighted line
items in an accounting statement.  But they're real, and they're huge.

How huge?  Well, one measure could be found in the observation that
there's now an entire -- large and growing -- market segment that
exists solely to mitigate the fallout from these operations.

And those same massive operations are doing everything they possibly
can to avoid hearing about any of this.  That's why abuse@ is effectively
hardwired to /dev/null.  And I note with interest that nobody from AWS
has had the professionalism to show up in this thread and say "Gosh, we're
sorry.  We screwed up.  We'll try to do better.  Can you help us?"

Because we would.

---rsk

RE: Novice sysadmins

[Keith Medcalf]

On Wednesday, 6 December, 2017 03:53, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

>On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:54:21AM -0700, Grant Taylor via NANOG
>wrote:

>> If you are trying, make an honest mistake, and are willing to
>> correct it when others politely let you know, you will quite
>> likely find people willing to help you.  Especially if you
>> return the favor in kind.

>Yes.  That's how we all get better at this.  And when any of us
>learn, we all benefit, so it's in our mutual best interest to
>share knowledge.
>(I've learned more here than I can measure.  And I'm grateful for
>it.)

>> If you are being a hooligan and not responding to problems
>> reported to you or purposefully ~> wantonly doing things
>> to others ... good luck.

>And the latter is the problem: we are faced, unfortunately,
>with massive operations that were designed, built, and deployed
>without the slightest consideration for responsible behavior
>toward the rest of the Internet.

And here for all these years a thought the bargain was that you
agree to carry my traffic without molestation and in return I
covenant not to molest your infrastructure or create a nuisance
or mess that you have to mitigate or clean up.

Of late this thinking seems to have gone mostly by the wayside.

It used to be that only the deliberate/wonton transgressors
violated that covenant, however, it seems that molestation
and nuisance creation have been spreading like an epidemic
for a number of years.

In fact it is quite common these days that if one brings up in
discussion that to act in a certain manner would create a nuisance
that others have to clean up and therefore you need to take
special precautions to not create the nuisance in the first place,
seems all too often be a cause for derision which, in my experience,
results in not being invited to participate further.

It also seems quite common that when these people then go ahead
with their ill-conceived plans and obtain the result you told
them would accrue, they act all surprised and astonished.

The "Well, I did warn you" usually does not go over too well.

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:54:21AM -0700, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
> The vast majority of what I've experienced in the last ~20 years has been
> people willing to help others who are trying to help themselves.

"Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."

> If you are trying, make an honest mistake, and are willing to correct it
> when others politely let you know, you will quite likely find people willing
> to help you.  Especially if you return the favor in kind.

Yes.  That's how we all get better at this.  And when any of us learn,
we all benefit, so it's in our mutual best interest to share knowledge.
(I've learned more here than I can measure.  And I'm grateful for it.)

> If you are being a hooligan and not responding to problems reported to you
> or purposefully ~> wantonly doing things to others ... good luck.

And the latter is the problem: we are faced, unfortunately, with massive
operations that were designed, built, and deployed without the slightest
consideration for responsible behavior toward the rest of the Internet.
All the rest of us are paying the price for that arrogance, incompetence
and negligence: we're paying for it with DoS/DDoS defenses, with spam
and phish defenses, with brute-force attack defenses, with time and
money and computing resources,  with complexity, with late nights and
early mornings, with annoyed customers, and -- on the occasions when those
defenses fail -- devastating consequences for organizations and people.

These costs aren't always obvious because they're not highlighted line
items in an accounting statement.  But they're real, and they're huge.

How huge?  Well, one measure could be found in the observation that
there's now an entire -- large and growing -- market segment that
exists solely to mitigate the fallout from these operations.

And those same massive operations are doing everything they possibly
can to avoid hearing about any of this.  That's why abuse@ is effectively
hardwired to /dev/null.  And I note with interest that nobody from AWS
has had the professionalism to show up in this thread and say "Gosh, we're
sorry.  We screwed up.  We'll try to do better.  Can you help us?"

Because we would.

---rsk

Re: Novice sysadmins (was: Suggestions for a more privacy conscious email provider)

[Scott Weeks]

--- b...@herrin.us wrote:
From: William Herrin 

Even the relatively good ones are bad. I have identified 
60 and am on track to identify about 200 errors in the 
official ISC2 CISSP study guide.
-


One last one I promise...  :-)

I also have to maintain a Security+ cert, which is part 
of the CISSP.  I absolutely despise the number of 
incorrect answers and misinformation that cert puts out.  
After I'm done taking that one everyone leaves me alone 
for the rest of the afternoon...  >:-(

I would not consider the Security+ a 'relatively good 
one'.  Rather, it's one of the worst I have ever had to 
do!

scott

Re: Novice sysadmins (was: Suggestions for a more privacy conscious email provider)

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:
> Have you seen neteng certs lately?  I'm forced to maintain a
> lower level one to keep my job and it makes me angry every
> time I have to do it.  The sales pitch is hidden in the words
> and the correct answer is almost always something that has to
> do with the proprietary item the vendor has.


Even the relatively good ones are bad. I have identified 60 and am on track
to identify about 200 errors in the official ISC2 CISSP study guide.

"However, UDP should only be used when the delivery of data is not
essential"

List of Layer 5 (Session) protocols:
NFS
SQL
RPC

Regarding IPv6 SLAAC: "Autoconfiguration removes the need for both DHCP and
NAT."

"A static packet-filtering firewall [is unable] to tell whether a packet
originated from inside or outside the private network."

"Examples of dedicated lines:
Technology, Connection Type, Speed
Digital Signal Level 0 (DS-0), Partial T1, 64 Kbps up to 1.544 Mbps
Digital Signal Level 1 (DS-1), T1, 1.544 Mbps"

"The web application then switches to a subject role as it queries the
user's computer to retrieve a cookie"

"Plenum-grade cable must be used [...] if the building has enclosed spaces
that could trap gases."


Stop. No. Just no. Plenum-grade cable must be used in a -plenum-. A plenum
is an air-handling space like the inside of a furnace duct. The only reason
we care about plenum cable in our jobs is that most offices take a shortcut
and turn the entire area above the ceiling tiles in to a giant return-air
duct for the air conditioner. That's why the return-air grill is simply
open into the ceiling. If you burn crap in an air-handling space, the fumes
aren't trapped: they almost immediately spread throughout the office.
That's bad, so we use different cable than what we put under the desk where
the fumes will tend to stay near where they started.

Trap gases? No! Plenum is for where the gases would quickly spread!

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Novice sysadmins (was: Suggestions for a more privacy conscious email provider)

[Scott Weeks]

--- l...@satchell.net wrote:
From: Stephen Satchell 

Indeed, I'm not aware of any certification that applies to system 
administrators.  Network administrators have certs that are 
well-recognized and accepted.  Mail admins?  Server admins?  The certs 
that are out there border on jokes or disguised sale pitches.  
---


Have you seen neteng certs lately?  I'm forced to maintain a
lower level one to keep my job and it makes me angry every
time I have to do it.  The sales pitch is hidden in the words 
and the correct answer is almost always something that has to
do with the proprietary item the vendor has.

scott

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Tim Pozar]

Should have an honorary list of great sysadmins.  In my years of doing
this sort of work, I found a number of folks that would lend a helping
hand.  To that, I would like to nominate:

Strata Rose Chalup
--
Strata Rose Chalup began as a novice sysadmin in 1983 and has been
leading and managing complex IT projects ever since. She is a co-author
of The Practice of System and Network Administration and has taught at
USENIX Annual Tech and LISA for many years. Strata is always looking at
new technologies and is currently enjoying learning the Arduino
microcontroller platform.
[text from her USENIX conference page]


On 12/5/17 11:23 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> And then, let's not forget the BOFH! (http://www.bofharchive.com), and
> Mordac.
> 
> 
> On 12/5/17 11:40 AM, Sam Oduor wrote:
>> Subject of interest; my 15 years experience I met a blend of senior
>> admins
>> while learning the curves ..
>>
>> 1. Those who denied you knowledge/handover due to insecurity
>>
>> 2. Those who fed you with knowledge but were rude and could make you feel
>> like you undergoing some military training
>>
>> 3. Those who gave you manuals and told you go and read; hardcopy was a
>> common thing - I could deliberately stay back in the office and print a
>> whole library :-)
>>
>> 4. The rare breed that walked you through sysadmins !
>>
>>
>> Right now it seems the tables have turned around; I already feel I have
>> come to the end of the road as sysadmin but on a lighter note - I have
>> been
>> working hard on passing knowledge down and this are the new blend of
>> people
>> I have met.
>>
>> 1. Those willing to learn are very obedient but for some reason not up to
>> the task
>>
>> 2. Those who know everything you try to teach them; are kinda rude and
>> they
>> bring down systems - lab systems
>>
>> 3. Those who commit to be taught but never show up for free lessons
>> despite
>> offering them free lunch :-)
>>
>> 4. A rare young  breed that teaches me mobile apps and new games online -
>> the 90's champs !
>>
>> 5. A rare breed that goes the extra mile; sacrifice time and money to
>> learn
>> !
>>
>>
>> I love 4 & 5 !
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/05/2017 09:17 AM, Harald Koch wrote:
>>>
 Thirty years ago I started my sysadmin journey on an Internet that was
 filled with helpful, experienced people that were willing to share
 their
 knowledge.

>>> The vast majority of what I've experienced in the last ~20 years has
>>> been
>>> people willing to help others who are trying to help themselves.
>>>
>>> If you are trying, make an honest mistake, and are willing to correct it
>>> when others politely let you know, you will quite likely find people
>>> willing to help you.  Especially if you return the favor in kind.
>>>
>>> If you are being a hooligan and not responding to problems reported
>>> to you
>>> or purposefully ~> wantonly doing things to others ... good luck.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Grant. . . .
>>> unix || die
>>>
>>>
>>
> 

Re: Novice sysadmins (was: Suggestions for a more privacy conscious email provider)

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Satchell  wrote:

>  the Internet as we know it was developed under the stern eyes of the
> Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. The NSF in
> particular ran the 'Net like bouncers do in a strip club: you break the
> rules, you go.  No argument.
>
> The original trust model for the Internet was based on this unrelenting
> oversight.  You didn't expect Bad Things(tm) because the consequences of
> doing them was so severe:  banishment and exile.


Hi Stephen,

Granted I was a late arrival in 1991, but I don't recall much in the way of
oversight... or banishment.

I do recall that the '88 Morris worm resulted in 400 hours of community
service and a tenured professorship at MIT. I suppose the latter could be
considered a severe consequence.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Miles Fidelman]

And then, let's not forget the BOFH! (http://www.bofharchive.com), and 
Mordac.



On 12/5/17 11:40 AM, Sam Oduor wrote:

Subject of interest; my 15 years experience I met a blend of senior admins
while learning the curves ..

1. Those who denied you knowledge/handover due to insecurity

2. Those who fed you with knowledge but were rude and could make you feel
like you undergoing some military training

3. Those who gave you manuals and told you go and read; hardcopy was a
common thing - I could deliberately stay back in the office and print a
whole library :-)

4. The rare breed that walked you through sysadmins !


Right now it seems the tables have turned around; I already feel I have
come to the end of the road as sysadmin but on a lighter note - I have been
working hard on passing knowledge down and this are the new blend of people
I have met.

1. Those willing to learn are very obedient but for some reason not up to
the task

2. Those who know everything you try to teach them; are kinda rude and they
bring down systems - lab systems

3. Those who commit to be taught but never show up for free lessons despite
offering them free lunch :-)

4. A rare young  breed that teaches me mobile apps and new games online -
the 90's champs !

5. A rare breed that goes the extra mile; sacrifice time and money to learn
!


I love 4 & 5 !






On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG 
wrote:


On 12/05/2017 09:17 AM, Harald Koch wrote:


Thirty years ago I started my sysadmin journey on an Internet that was
filled with helpful, experienced people that were willing to share their
knowledge.


The vast majority of what I've experienced in the last ~20 years has been
people willing to help others who are trying to help themselves.

If you are trying, make an honest mistake, and are willing to correct it
when others politely let you know, you will quite likely find people
willing to help you.  Especially if you return the favor in kind.

If you are being a hooligan and not responding to problems reported to you
or purposefully ~> wantonly doing things to others ... good luck.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die






--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Sam Oduor]

Subject of interest; my 15 years experience I met a blend of senior admins
while learning the curves ..

1. Those who denied you knowledge/handover due to insecurity

2. Those who fed you with knowledge but were rude and could make you feel
like you undergoing some military training

3. Those who gave you manuals and told you go and read; hardcopy was a
common thing - I could deliberately stay back in the office and print a
whole library :-)

4. The rare breed that walked you through sysadmins !


Right now it seems the tables have turned around; I already feel I have
come to the end of the road as sysadmin but on a lighter note - I have been
working hard on passing knowledge down and this are the new blend of people
I have met.

1. Those willing to learn are very obedient but for some reason not up to
the task

2. Those who know everything you try to teach them; are kinda rude and they
bring down systems - lab systems

3. Those who commit to be taught but never show up for free lessons despite
offering them free lunch :-)

4. A rare young  breed that teaches me mobile apps and new games online -
the 90's champs !

5. A rare breed that goes the extra mile; sacrifice time and money to learn
!


I love 4 & 5 !






On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG 
wrote:

> On 12/05/2017 09:17 AM, Harald Koch wrote:
>
>> Thirty years ago I started my sysadmin journey on an Internet that was
>> filled with helpful, experienced people that were willing to share their
>> knowledge.
>>
>
> The vast majority of what I've experienced in the last ~20 years has been
> people willing to help others who are trying to help themselves.
>
> If you are trying, make an honest mistake, and are willing to correct it
> when others politely let you know, you will quite likely find people
> willing to help you.  Especially if you return the favor in kind.
>
> If you are being a hooligan and not responding to problems reported to you
> or purposefully ~> wantonly doing things to others ... good luck.
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
>
>


-- 
Samson Oduor

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Miles Fidelman]

Umm.. back in the day, only researchers & engineers used the ARPANET, 
and secretaries, and administrators, and very quickly lots of military 
ratings, ... By the time networks were connected to form the Internet, 
and particularly once university LANs and CANs were connected, you had 
students, hackers, pretty much all types using the Internet.


And among those of us who actually built pieces of the thing, I don't 
remember a lot of PhDs - to much interesting work to be done for people 
to stay in school.



On 12/5/17 11:15 AM, amuse wrote:

Back in the day, only Ph.D's used the internet, so they were the sysadmins.

These days, I recommend that system administration be only allowed for
card-holding responsible people who have proven their technical abilities.
Then, when you get awarded your Ph.D, they can take your sysadmin card back.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Leo Bicknell  wrote:


In a message written on Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:49:43AM -0800, Stephen
Satchell wrote:

The NSF in particular ran the 'Net like bouncers do in a strip club:
you break the rules, you go.  No argument.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a more inaccurate description of the NSF.
What in the world are you talking about?


The original trust model for the Internet was based on this unrelenting
oversight.  You didn't expect Bad Things(tm) because the consequences of
doing them was so severe:  banishment and exile.  Also, the technical
ability required to do Bad Things(tm) wasn't easily won.  Accessing the
'Net was a PRIVILEGE, not a right.  Abuse at your own peril.

Oh wait, you took the BS to a new level.

There was no banishment and exile.  This was before we knew of buffer
overflows, spoofing, and so on.  I remember the weekly sendmail buffer
overrun bugs, the finger back bombs, the rlogin spoofing attacks.
Turns out bored college students were very good at creating mischeff.

There was no banishment.  There were plenty of bad things.


Ok, I'll shut up now.

Good plan.

--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Re: Novice sysadmins (was: Suggestions for a more privacy conscious email provider)

[amuse]

Back in the day, only Ph.D's used the internet, so they were the sysadmins.

These days, I recommend that system administration be only allowed for
card-holding responsible people who have proven their technical abilities.
Then, when you get awarded your Ph.D, they can take your sysadmin card back.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Leo Bicknell  wrote:

> In a message written on Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:49:43AM -0800, Stephen
> Satchell wrote:
> > The NSF in particular ran the 'Net like bouncers do in a strip club:
> > you break the rules, you go.  No argument.
>
> I'm not sure I've ever seen a more inaccurate description of the NSF.
> What in the world are you talking about?
>
> > The original trust model for the Internet was based on this unrelenting
> > oversight.  You didn't expect Bad Things(tm) because the consequences of
> > doing them was so severe:  banishment and exile.  Also, the technical
> > ability required to do Bad Things(tm) wasn't easily won.  Accessing the
> > 'Net was a PRIVILEGE, not a right.  Abuse at your own peril.
>
> Oh wait, you took the BS to a new level.
>
> There was no banishment and exile.  This was before we knew of buffer
> overflows, spoofing, and so on.  I remember the weekly sendmail buffer
> overrun bugs, the finger back bombs, the rlogin spoofing attacks.
> Turns out bored college students were very good at creating mischeff.
>
> There was no banishment.  There were plenty of bad things.
>
> > Ok, I'll shut up now.
>
> Good plan.
>
> --
> Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 12/05/2017 09:17 AM, Harald Koch wrote:
Thirty years ago I started my sysadmin journey on an Internet that was 
filled with helpful, experienced people that were willing to share their 
knowledge.


The vast majority of what I've experienced in the last ~20 years has 
been people willing to help others who are trying to help themselves.


If you are trying, make an honest mistake, and are willing to correct it 
when others politely let you know, you will quite likely find people 
willing to help you.  Especially if you return the favor in kind.


If you are being a hooligan and not responding to problems reported to 
you or purposefully ~> wantonly doing things to others ... good luck.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Novice sysadmins (was: Suggestions for a more privacy conscious email provider)

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:49:43AM -0800, Stephen Satchell 
wrote:
> The NSF in particular ran the 'Net like bouncers do in a strip club: 
> you break the rules, you go.  No argument.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a more inaccurate description of the NSF.
What in the world are you talking about?

> The original trust model for the Internet was based on this unrelenting 
> oversight.  You didn't expect Bad Things(tm) because the consequences of 
> doing them was so severe:  banishment and exile.  Also, the technical 
> ability required to do Bad Things(tm) wasn't easily won.  Accessing the 
> 'Net was a PRIVILEGE, not a right.  Abuse at your own peril.

Oh wait, you took the BS to a new level.

There was no banishment and exile.  This was before we knew of buffer
overflows, spoofing, and so on.  I remember the weekly sendmail buffer
overrun bugs, the finger back bombs, the rlogin spoofing attacks.
Turns out bored college students were very good at creating mischeff.

There was no banishment.  There were plenty of bad things.

> Ok, I'll shut up now.

Good plan.

-- 
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Novice sysadmins

[Michael Thomas]

On 12/05/2017 08:17 AM, Harald Koch wrote:

Thirty years ago I started my sysadmin journey on an Internet that was
filled with helpful, experienced people that were willing to share their
knowledge.

Twenty years ago I was one of three people running CA*net, the
cross-Canada research Internet with three connections to the NSFnet. I
don't remember this world of banishment and exile you're discussing; the
NSFnet staff I dealt with were all friendly and helpful.

I plan to continue to "pay it forward", by being friendly and helpful
to "novice sysadmins". The curmudgeons in this thread can, frankly, get off
my lawn.

Exactly right. If there were some high priesthood for being able to put 
stuff on the net,  there would be no net

as we know it. This is a feature, not a bug.

Mike

Re: Novice sysadmins (was: Suggestions for a more privacy conscious email provider)

[Harald Koch]

Thirty years ago I started my sysadmin journey on an Internet that was
filled with helpful, experienced people that were willing to share their
knowledge.

Twenty years ago I was one of three people running CA*net, the
cross-Canada research Internet with three connections to the NSFnet. I
don't remember this world of banishment and exile you're discussing; the
NSFnet staff I dealt with were all friendly and helpful.

I plan to continue to "pay it forward", by being friendly and helpful
to "novice sysadmins". The curmudgeons in this thread can, frankly, get off
my lawn.

-- 
Harald

Novice sysadmins (was: Suggestions for a more privacy conscious email provider)

[Stephen Satchell]

On 12/05/2017 02:59 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 07:38:18PM -0500, Eric Tykwinski wrote:

Main point I think is mailops comes with a learning curve, and it happens...


"Current Peeve: The mindset that the Internet is some sort of
school for novice sysadmins and that everyone *not* doing stupid
dangerous things should act like patient teachers with the ones
who are."

--- Bill Cole

---rsk



Indeed.  What Ajit Pai missed in his deliberations for the Dec 14 FCC 
vote is that the Internet as we know it was developed under the stern 
eyes of the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. 
The NSF in particular ran the 'Net like bouncers do in a strip club: 
you break the rules, you go.  No argument.


The original trust model for the Internet was based on this unrelenting 
oversight.  You didn't expect Bad Things(tm) because the consequences of 
doing them was so severe:  banishment and exile.  Also, the technical 
ability required to do Bad Things(tm) wasn't easily won.  Accessing the 
'Net was a PRIVILEGE, not a right.  Abuse at your own peril.


Organizations had experienced sysadmins because it was imperative to the 
survival of the connection to the 'Net.  One gained experience by being 
apprenticed to some experienced sysadmin.  Today:  not so much.


Indeed, I'm not aware of any certification that applies to system 
administrators.  Network administrators have certs that are 
well-recognized and accepted.  Mail admins?  Server admins?  The certs 
that are out there border on jokes or disguised sale pitches.  (Not 
unlike a certain operating system and software product vendor who put 
"free" copies into schools to build their marketing base.)


Ok, I'll shut up now.