> 1. Fully managed so sysadmin is someone else's headache/no need to hire > a full-time sysadmin.
I think there's some misinformation here about the term "fully managed." This does not mean they'll do all your structure engineering and planning, and tell you if you should be using Active Directory or LDAP or Kerberos or NFS or CIFS etc etc. And write your documentation for you, and create and communicate the company policies to your users, and fulfill the role of an IT manager or CIO. It means they'll watch it for blinking red lights, they'll monitor the backup system, etc. Basically once it's steady state, they'll be the autopilot. If you are talking about changing things, upgrading software, planning future technologies or development ... Basically anything that's not easy for a junior admin ... that's not included. Although they may have some expertise to sell you, it would be extra, or not available at all. I am not speaking from personal experience or undeniable fact. Take what I've said with a grain of salt, and get your facts, and tell me if I'm wrong somehow. ;-) But I don't believe I am. I think you should compare their "fully managed" solution against a junior admin. _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
