Mark R. Lindsey wrote: > So licensing might be beneficial if there are things about system > administration where it's critical that we all know that we all know > something. For example, all electricians know that the green wire is > NEVER the hot wire. And all drivers know that the person turning right > has the right-of-way (unless you're at a red light in Philadelphia, > where all the rules are different). Computing is a global exercise these days. Do you know that 'green' means something totally different under the British wiring standards?
And where does the person turning right have the right-of-way? In the two jurisdictions where I have taken driving exams, it is the person *on* the right who has the right-of-way, when two vehicles arrive at stop signs at the intersection at the same time. > > For example, do we all know that a default route is supposed to point > toward the Internet? Not if you want to keep your traffic internal, for instance, in many labs. > > Less trivially, do we all know that the root password shouldn't be > 'root'? Can we all depend on everybody else knowing that? Does the field of systems administration only cover *nix platforms? What would a Windows admin be expected to know from 'root'? > > Would it be valuable for us to have some way of establishing -- among > ourselves -- what we all know that we know? I'm not trying to be flip with the above responses. The examples that you bring were both location- and technology- centric. Should licenced 'sysadmins' also be expected to be able to write JCL and boot and confiigure zOS (aka MVS aka OS/MVT aka DOS) on mainframes? Believe it or not, there are still a lot of mainframes out there, with IBM selling more and more of them all the time! (And yes, although I haven't done it for more than 20 years, I can still write basic JCL. :-) Cars are required to have some common configurations (steering wheel, brake pedal, accelerator, ignition) and some optional features (gear shift, clutch pedal) that people are required to learn to use, and the road systems are required to have certain features (lanes, traffic signs and signals, etc) that are configured more-or-less the same within a given jurisdiction. Computers (the roads) and operating systems (the cars) have no such regulated environment, even within a given 'jurisdiction'. Computers vary considerably by manufacturer, and - believe it or not - Unix and it's near brethren are not the only OSes in town. Are we suggesting that licencing be required *only* to operate a *nix environment? What about Windows, zOS, and any other OS out there? Does a new distribution of Linux automatically make it an environment for which licencing is required? In a technology that is completely unregulated and continuously changing, the 'common knowledge' changes continuously as well. Even the example of not setting the root password to 'root' - what if the box is set up using a different security model, where the ID 'root' has all of the wonderful privileges of 'nobody' - and no more? How dangerous is it for the password of 'root' to be 'root' then? There are 'best practices' for a given environment, but are we prepared to set up licencing boards for every possible environment? What is 'obvious' at your $WORK may be anathema at mine - based on business decisions, different architectural decisions, different mixes of hardware and operating systems, and even different personalities. These kinds of issues are much better handled through training than through regulation and licencing. Until computing resolves into a relatively fixed set of hardware design rules, operating system platforms, and architectural design 'laws', systems administration can only become bogged down or made irrelevant by introducing licencing to the profession. - Richard _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
