On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:38:46PM -0800, Ken Barber wrote: > "Lazy sysadmins"? I beg to differ. > > How about "overworked sysadmins"? I was once in charge of a 'Doze > network and there was no way I could keep current with the > patches. Before one patch project was complete, there were two > more vulnerabilities that needed patching. And patching M$ > systems isn't exactly quick or easy with all of the testing that > must be done first, not to mention trying to schedule the patch > around various or department's schedules. I could have worked > full-time at that place doing nothing else -- but I was required > to do everything else. > > The problem isn't lazy sysadmins, unless not wanting to work 70 > hours per week is your definition of "lazy."
Agreed. In a recent thread about linux activism w/ numbers, I posted a research report done by the Robert Frances Group, paid for by IBM. This study focused on real world clients using windows, linux and solaris on x86 and sun hardware respectively. They broke all measurements down to normalized units so they could be compared fairly. They found from these real world businesses that a windows administrator can generally administer 10 servers, while a linux administrator, although more expensive, can manage 44 servers. http://www.rfgonline.com/subsforum/LinuxTCO.pdf Cory -- Cory Petkovsek Adapting Information Adaptable IT Consulting Technology to your (541) 914-8417 business [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.AdaptableIT.com _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
