I am sorry you had such a bad experience with that individual, I have
met a few myself and know what you are talking about, but I have
likewise had experiences with contractors that didn't know squat, yet
were getting paid two-three times more money than me, and later I ended
up fixing what they screwed-up.
As far as migrating is concerned, it might be easier for you, but for
someone who does not deal with Nix boxes much, it's the other way
around. It's all relevant to what you're used to, they are both so
different, that it's the same thing as saying it's easier to learn
Spanish than it is English. That probaly depends on where you were
raised don't 'ya think? The bottom line here again though is that until
at least management is centralized, no one will set standards, and that
means for personnel qualification too. It won't matter if the state
goes open source tomorrow if you get a buch of un-qualified Linux techs.
There has to be set standards and people have to be held responsible
to meet those standards or find another position somewhere within their
capability range. Right now there are no incentives to be better than
anyone else other than maybe personal pride (mine). Let's say you and I
are both ISS 6's, and you bust your butt, but I slack and play on the
net, etc. Do I have your certs? Nope. Do I have your drive to learn?
Nope. But I will make the same wage. So there need to be more defined
standards that say "This position is for a Windows NT/2K server tech,
and minimal qualifications are an MCSA, AND 4-5 years experience".
Something like that which is definative, and not "You must have a
bachelors degree in computer science or equivalent experience". That is
way to open to the interpretation of the interviewer, and that leads to
the Good 'ol Boy system.
Also on the matter of switching to complete open source, I think that
is an option if MS doesn't quit gouging the hell out of everyone like
they did with their new licensing agreement, but at the moment it would
not be cost effective. Not only is there the cost of equipment in some
cases, there is a cost of re-training everyone that currently supports
MS, and guess what? The largest three use MS at least on the destops,
and your talking over half of the state's employees with those three.
Again, these only reflect my opinion on this subject. I do not claim
to be an expert on the system, I only wish to offer the point of view
from someone on the inside of the system.
Dion Baird
-----Original Message-----
From: Shaun Savage [mailto:savages@private]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:21 PM
To: T. Kenji Sugahara
Cc: CRIME
Subject: Re: CRIME Computers vulnerable at Oregon department
T. Kenji Sugahara wrote:
> Shaun,
>
> Open Source is great but how about support? There are legions of MS
> trained support people but how about Linux/UNIX trained folks?
I have seen some of the MS support people, and they are worthless. One
person spent two hours trying to hook up a 8 port hub. The docs stated
port 8 was the crossover connection but if you looked at the hub, port 1
was.
my guess is that there are about equal QUALIFIED Linux/unix <-> MS
support people. If you know the protocols, and undrestand what is
really happing, it is easier to migrate from MS to Linux than from Linux
-> MS
Which
> brings about another question of Open Source - Uniformity. What do
> you
> think the repercussions are of the kind of mods that you can make in
an
> open source environment? Most everything can be modified - and will
be.
> It tends to require a different perspective than out of the box
> solutions.
This is more of procedure than tech. By creating a STD distro for the
enviroment then creating a package database for every machine, then you
will know what you have. That database for each machine is stored on a
central configuration computer. When any update are made to that
machine the changes are made in the DB on the central computer.
If policy does not allow configuration changes to the base machine the
then root should not change it. This like any enterprize admin.
I wonder what IT support is like in that environment?
>
> In addition, how will software developers react to Open Source and
> Open
> Standards?
I don't understand the question. I thought that open RFC's already
define how developers program. Only in the MS world is SMPT not the
SMTP protocol. MS removes the "<>" in <email@domain> defined by the
SMTP RFC.
Personally I think programming to and following standards would be good
for the public.
Will service contracts work as a business model for SW
> developers?
There would be not much difference in the way it is done now. Open bids
for a application, where the developer gets NRE. Then another open bid
for support. Because the code is released into the public commons any
person can become an expert on it. That should increase competition and
reduce price.
It is sort-of a throwback to the old IBM model of sell the
> HW for under cost and then make em pay for the maintenance.
The difference between the IBM model is that the source is open. The
state is NOT locked into one vender. The vendor does NOT have a
monopoly on the code. This is the key idea. When source code is closed
this creates a monopoly on maintaince and upgrades. This monopoly
increases price and reduces quality of both product and service.
The side effect of going to open source it when one state developes a
GREAT DMV system, other states can use it. This will standardize the
DMV system across the states. This is both good and bad, it allows for
a common database format that the feds can search easier;-/
>
>
>> Open of the problems in goverment is that they are not open to new
>> ideas, even if the ideas better server the people of the state. The
>> concept of open source is totally unheard of in goverment. As such
>> they, the big cheeses, don't want to get near it. To me open source
>> is the best concept for goverment. Pay for software once,
>> development, then the people could use it forever. If a program is
>> put into the public domain then that adds to the commen welfare of
>> everyone.
>>
>> I have read that the goverment should support business. The question
>> here is are the people more important or companies. people vote but
>> companies donate(bribe) more money.
>>
>> Shaun Savage
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 09:24:40 PDT