Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators? - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators? - Microsoft Windows ; In article , Ignoramus31561 wrote: > The question that is in my mind is, why exactly are Linux people paid > more than Windows people? In perfect economy, such a shortage would Because a large number of Linux system administrators ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

  1. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    In article <8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com>,
    Ignoramus31561 wrote:
    > The question that is in my mind is, why exactly are Linux people paid
    > more than Windows people? In perfect economy, such a shortage would


    Because a large number of Linux system administrators are *also* Windows
    system administrators.

    In a majority of cases, a "Windows shop" is a place that runs Windows on
    the servers and the desktops. They need Windows administrators. And a
    "Linux shop" is a place that runs Linux on the servers and Windows on
    the desktops, so needs Linux administrators and Windows administrators.
    Places without Windows are a small minority, so the number of Linux
    administrators who are NOT also Windows administrators is small.

    People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    average for "Linux administrator" is high.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?



    "Tim Smith" wrote in message
    news:reply_in_group-9A92C2.12284001102008@news.supernews.com...
    > In article <8pKdnUKMOcPzB37VnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com>,
    > Ignoramus31561 wrote:
    >> The question that is in my mind is, why exactly are Linux people paid
    >> more than Windows people? In perfect economy, such a shortage would

    >
    > Because a large number of Linux system administrators are *also* Windows
    > system administrators.
    >
    > In a majority of cases, a "Windows shop" is a place that runs Windows on
    > the servers and the desktops. They need Windows administrators. And a
    > "Linux shop" is a place that runs Linux on the servers and Windows on
    > the desktops, so needs Linux administrators and Windows administrators.
    > Places without Windows are a small minority, so the number of Linux
    > administrators who are NOT also Windows administrators is small.
    >
    > People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    > do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    > average for "Linux administrator" is high.



    Throw in some database expertise, a good understanding of networking and
    some security understanding and you can actually find someone that
    understands "computers". However we tend to design systems rather than
    administer them. ;-)


  3. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    > do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    > average for "Linux administrator" is high.


    Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.

    Nice FUD try.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  4. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:48:34 -0500, RonB wrote:

    > On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    >> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >> average for "Linux administrator" is high.

    >
    > Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    > Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >
    > Nice FUD try.


    Wrong.....

    Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
    Please Visit www.linsux.org

  5. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    RonB writes:

    > On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    >> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >> average for "Linux administrator" is high.

    >
    > Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and
    > administering


    No they haven't. Are you mad?

    > Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >
    > Nice FUD try.


    There is also the point that they can do the windows boxes too....

    --
    "Maybe you can buy a Saturday Night Special and blow your POS brains out."
    -- Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  6. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:22:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > RonB writes:
    >
    >> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    >>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.

    >>
    >> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and
    >> administering

    >
    > No they haven't. Are you mad?


    No, informed. What kind of shops are you talking about. A bicycle store?

    >> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>
    >> Nice FUD try.

    >
    > There is also the point that they can do the windows boxes too....


    No kidding. Almost every decent sized IT organization has a mix of
    Windows, UNIX and Linux. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  7. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
    > On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    >> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >> average for "Linux administrator" is high.

    >
    > Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    > Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >


    Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:

    for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    done

    Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    unattended).

    Try this on windows. Good luck.
    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

  8. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    RonB wrote:

    > No, informed. What kind of shops are you talking about. A bicycle store?


    What Queeg doesn't actually know, he makes up and posts as fact.
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    Owner/Proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

    You are deeply attached to your friends and acquaintances.


  9. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    RonB wrote:

    > Almost every decent sized IT organization has a mix of
    > Windows, UNIX and Linux. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.


    We have a number of Windows machines in our entirely Unix / Linux business.
    They're used to test software that we sometimes have to build for that
    platform, to test security threats to /our/ code through compromised
    Windows machines, and because we like the shade of blue that's so often
    seen on their monitors...

    C.


  10. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?



    "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    news:Ip6dnYIMbpXg0nnVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
    > On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
    >> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    >>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.

    >>
    >> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    >> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>

    >
    > Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >
    > for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    > ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    > done
    >
    > Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    > (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    > unattended).
    >
    > Try this on windows. Good luck.


    Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
    You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
    automatically download and update.
    All your comment shows is how poor your understanding of windows is.
    You are probably hunter in disguise as he knows nothing that is true as far
    as windows is concerned.

    BTW there is a scripting language you could use to do windows but why when
    there are management packages that do the job better?
    With them you can roll the changes back if you discover any unwanted effects
    later all without going near the machines.

    I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design and
    manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
    machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the other can
    struggle along and get away with it. It is why some people get paid lots,
    its also why the opinion about windows that most people express in this
    group is such cr@p, they just don't have a clue and never will have as they
    are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.


  11. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>
    >> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >>
    >> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    >> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    >> done
    >>
    >> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    >> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    >> unattended).
    >>
    >> Try this on windows. Good luck.

    >
    > Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
    > You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
    > automatically download and update.


    How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?

    > I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design and
    > manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
    > machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the other can
    > struggle along and get away with it. It is why some people get paid lots,
    > its also why the opinion about windows that most people express in this
    > group is such cr@p, they just don't have a clue and never will have as they
    > are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.

    ^^^^^^

    guffaw

    --
    When I think about myself,
    I almost laugh myself to death, ...
    I laugh until I start to crying,
    When I think about my folks. -- Maya Angelou

  12. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:

    >> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    >> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>
    >> Nice FUD try.

    >
    > Wrong.....
    >
    > Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...


    A Unix admin that can handle Solaris, AIX, and HPUX can easily handle Linux.


  13. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?



    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:2%1Fk.41060$XT1.6024@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >>>
    >>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    >>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    >>> done
    >>>
    >>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    >>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    >>> unattended).
    >>>
    >>> Try this on windows. Good luck.

    >>
    >> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
    >> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
    >> automatically download and update.

    >
    > How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?


    That is the difference between knowing about something and chucking out cr@p
    statements like some in this group.

    >> I guess its the difference between someone that knows how to design and
    >> manage a few hundred machines and some cowboy that manages four or five
    >> machines.. one needs to know how to do things the proper way, the other
    >> can
    >> struggle along and get away with it. It is why some people get paid lots,
    >> its also why the opinion about windows that most people express in this
    >> group is such cr@p, they just don't have a clue and never will have as
    >> they
    >> are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.

    > ^^^^^^
    >
    > guffaw


    I take it you can only find spell chucker errors to argue about?




  14. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?



    "Maxwell Lol" wrote in message
    news:87fxnfmdty.fsf@com.invalid...
    > "Moshe Goldfarb." writes:
    >
    >>> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    >>> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>>
    >>> Nice FUD try.

    >>
    >> Wrong.....
    >>
    >> Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...

    >
    > A Unix admin that can handle Solaris, AIX, and HPUX can easily handle
    > Linux.
    >


    At the level that most people operate at almost anyone could handle linux.
    They don't appear to be able to setup windows not to use admin for user
    accounts though.
    I guess they don't actually understand admin functions under any OS
    including linux?


  15. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >>>
    >>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    >>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    >>> done
    >>>
    >>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    >>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    >>> unattended).
    >>>
    >>> Try this on windows. Good luck.

    >>
    >> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
    >> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
    >> automatically download and update.

    >
    > How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?


    I dunno, I still would personally feel better being able to go
    out to each machine, fire off an update command and then get the
    response so that it can be logged by the same process that's in
    charge of the update.

    Interestingly enough, there's supposed to be something available
    under Windows to do the Unix version of what we're talking about.
    Some Unix admin I'm talking to in another forum claims to be familiar
    with the details. Although he hasn't laid them out though.

    OTOH, you could build your own local package repository with
    Linux or Solaris and do the same sort of approach as is being
    advocated for Windows. Set the individual machines to always update
    from the repository and just add things to it.

    Then let the fur fly.

    --
    Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's |||
    continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \
    simple date manipulations in postgres.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  16. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Christopher Hunter wrote:
    > RonB wrote:
    >
    >> Almost every decent sized IT organization has a mix of
    >> Windows, UNIX and Linux. To pretend otherwise is just dishonest.

    >
    > We have a number of Windows machines in our entirely Unix / Linux
    > business. They're used to test software that we sometimes have to
    > build for that platform, to test security threats to /our/ code
    > through compromised Windows machines, and because we like the shade
    > of blue that's so often seen on their monitors...


    You'll be posting video proof of these BSOD any minute now, right liar?




  17. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    Ignoramus31561 writes:

    > On 2008-10-02, RonB wrote:
    >> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    >>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.

    >>
    >> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    >> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>

    >
    > Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >
    > for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    > ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    > done
    >
    > Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    > (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    > unattended).
    >
    > Try this on windows. Good luck.


    You probably would not want to.

    I think a nicer solution is to either ssh/sync a package file (list of
    packages in it) or to allow the destination machines to pick it up
    themsleves using rsync on a machine specific cron job.

    Forcing an update onto remote machines is naive unless you really,
    really now that machine is (a) up and (b) in a position where installing
    SW is a good idea.

  18. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    On 2008-10-02, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    > news:2%1Fk.41060$XT1.6024@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> "Ignoramus31561" wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>> Here's how I would install a package on all our Linux servers:
    >>>>
    >>>> for i in $ALL_LINUX_SERVERS; do
    >>>> ssh -t -t -l root $i aptitude -y install wantedpackage
    >>>> done
    >>>>
    >>>> Takes 30 seconds of my time regardless of the number of servers.
    >>>> (though with many servers, it may have to run for a while, usually
    >>>> unattended).
    >>>>
    >>>> Try this on windows. Good luck.
    >>>
    >>> Well you wouldn't do it like that under windows.
    >>> You would load the SW onto a server and then let the windows machines
    >>> automatically download and update.

    >>
    >> How do you "let" the Windows machines do that?

    >
    > That is the difference between knowing about something and chucking out cr@p
    > statements like some in this group.


    Until you prove otherwise, you fall in the latter category.

    [deletia]

    --
    Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's |||
    continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \
    simple date manipulations in postgres.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  19. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Moshe Goldfarb. belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:48:34 -0500, RonB wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:28:40 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> People who can administer two systems make more than people who can only
    >>> do one. Since most Linux administrators fall into this category, the
    >>> average for "Linux administrator" is high.

    >>
    >> Bullcrap. Most shops have had UNIX servers for decades and administering
    >> Linux servers is almost identical to administering UNIX servers.
    >>
    >> Nice FUD try.

    >
    > Wrong.....
    >
    > Can you say partitions, logical volume manger etc...


    Can you say Active Directory?

    'nuff said.

    --
    ...you could spend *all day* customizing the title bar. Believe me. I
    speak from experience.
    -- Matt Welsh

  20. Re: Higher cost of Linux system administrators?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    >>> are too scared to actually even learn the basics about windows admin.

    >> ^^^^^^
    >>
    >> guffaw

    >
    > I take it you can only find spell chucker errors to argue about?


    It's not a spell "chucker" (good pun by the way) error. It's a
    deep-structure error ;->

    --
    List at least two alternate dates.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast