Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote: > As an IT Director (and the entire IT department, currently), > if I were hiring a sysadmin I know for a fact that someone > whose first response to a question on why something doesn't > work is 'turn it off' would not get a job here. Don't read too much on what other people say on a list -- including the person I'm sure you're referencing here (It's actually not me for once! Whew! ;-). Sometimes people just don't like things, and their opinions would come off much better in person than e-mail. I _always_ think that, even when I completely disagree with someone. As far as "one-upmanship," in just the last 2 months, I have catelogued no less than 21 separate incidents of "one-upmanship" (yes, I was part of a number of them -- but I was also not part of a _majority_ of them -- especially when I wasn't posting for awhile), and the total is by _more_ than 1 dozen different people. Anytime you get enough intelligent people in a group, you're going to have differences and varying opinions. Trying to label someone based on them in e-mail is rather poor, so no one should try. Even in my own, local LUG, people vary in e-mail from in-person, but at least we see each other in-person. God knows at a place of work, I go to someone's office (if they are local) or pick up the phone and/or use remote meeting capabilities (if they are not) to explain something. E-mail _sucks_ as a medium for explaining ideas clearly. ;-> It's only good for log files and cut'n pasting things. ;-> That's why question/summary-only mailing lists like Sun Managers and Linux Managers are best when you reach a certain level of subscribers who never see each other. You can't read sarcasm, sincerest humility and the fact that someone might not be giving you their relevant credentials just to be arrogant (especially not after you gave your own first! ;-). > Neither would a sysadmin with as much cynicism as has been > displayed, or an automatic 'it broke things' when something > new (and in fact improved) comes along get a job here. Do > realize that this list is archived, and that many people who > are hiring might use Google to find your name (or mine, for > that matter). Then according to that logic, I should _never_ have a job. ;-> REALITY: Just because the majority disagrees with you doesn't mean that you're necessarily wrong. Ironically, I've gotten no less than 2 salaried jobs and more than a dozen clients because I was someone on a list _very_few_people_ openly agreed with in a discussion. This has happened time and time again to me -- I'll get a call with an offer for a job because I did not bow down to "popular view" on something! So excuse me if I don't really care for this continued stream of meta-discussions about what goes on here (I'm not saying you're responsible for that -- many others have already preceeded yourself). People are right, people are wrong, people are whatever from their viewpoints. I don't like the "absolutism" I see on SELinux, Red Hat, etc... and I'll sound off, but I leave it there. I don't "hate" anyone -- in fact, the only things I really mind are the people that regularly bring up the fact that they are blocking me, but feel the need to comment on me (So you're blocking me so you see anyting so you won't talk about me? Or you just like making a "big deal" about me? ;-). In the end, I _never_ say people aren't entitled to their opinions -- no matter how misguided or narrowminded I might feel they might be. Why? Because I'm sure many others think the same about me too -- so I can't fault people for doing what I also do in the eyes of others. Now if you're a hypocrite, then you'll get my scorn. ;-> Don't try to lecture me about my commentary when you've done the exact same things. That's a sure-fire way to lose my respect. But as long as you aren't a hypocrite, I could _care_less_ what you do in e-mail, because most of us have _all_ done it too! > Bryan Smith, for all the verbosity he is known for, doesn't > seem to be lazy and could likely hold the job; Others might disagree. There have been several incidents in my professional life where people got so disgusted with me in e-mail that they call my employer or, in the case of one person, even made criminal accusations against me to the authorities. Did I ever work with these people? No. Ironically enough, it's been the ones I show the most chartity to in real-life (consulting for free, writing scripts/programs for free, etc...) that I find get "fixated" after I've "bailed them out. Including the one who made a criminal accusation, I helped him more than anyone in my life. [ Of course, in doing that, he cut his own throat, and very few in our LUG will help him every again, and the few that have tried now agree with me. ;-] > The main reason I think sysadmins in general seem to hate > SELinux is the 'Mandatory' part of 'Mandatory Access Control' Once again, you say it shorter and sweeter than I could ever. ;-> I really thought my analogy to a firewall with a deny-all outgoing default policy was a good one. Apparently not? > Also, as one poster wrote, SELinux is NOT a *service* but > is indeed the Bully Boss of the system. Agreed, and that's how I responded as well. -- Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)