On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 10:01:07AM +0100, Simon Wilcox wrote: > > So I still need a permenent linux/apache/samba sysadmin, the people I've > > spoken to offlist either want to be perl developers or work on contract > > What is for you the advantage of a perm. sysadmin versus a very > responsive contractor? By "very responsive" I mean a contractor with > whom you've entered into an SLA, e.g. 30min hour problem acknowledgement > from cell call within business hours.
IMO, contractors are useful and valuable people to have around for defined projects, resource cover or to bring specialist skills to an infrequent specific problem. In this case, however, they will be the lead of only two sysadmins and I want someone to come in and take a long term responsibility. However you look at it, no amount of documentation makes up for practical experience of the system you are supporting. If you change sys admins every 6-12 months you end up with a layered environment, each layer developed to a sysadmins personal taste with probably all sorts of little incompatibilities. Note - this is in a small company scenario where there is rarely any kind of handover period from one person to the next, unlike a larger company where you might change 1 of 4 or more and have the benefit of collective experience. I've found this reply incredibly difficult to write since so much of what I could say can be misconstrued and does not apply to many people on both sides of the fence. I have no wish to offend anyone with ill considered words so I think maybe it should be saved for The Three Cups on Thursday where it is more easily discussed and debated. Simon.
