• Back to all articles

An Open Letter from One Administrator to Users Everywhere

bofh
Think BOFH.
bofh.ntk.net

Destination of this letter
I'm afraid that this letter will be put near all HOWTO's and FAQ's where no one will read it :(

Can I relate!
You are so right!! I am the network admin for a school district. Last year we introduced a new grading program for the teachers. This grading program would integrate with our student information database program. We gave everyone a year to learn the grading program, while we tested and worked out as many bugs as we could with our student database program. A year later we start training the staff on the database program and when it came time to start entering grades for the first quarter of the school year, only a handfull of teachers had actually used and learned the grade program from a year earlier. And guess what most of them did.....complained about not having any training (yes it was provided to them) complained that it was different from the program they like to use (that won't integrate with the database program) and on an on......
If our users out there would only understand that we are here to actually HELP them and that computing and networking is not some incantation that only great wizards know, but that it is something they can learn and pass on their knowledge on to their co-workers to then help them.

Ray

No, this is not right
First and foremost: Not all computer users are computer literate. They were hired because (hopefully) they are "sufficiently skilled" in some other art which directly or indirectly contributes to the value of their company. It is that simple. They are and they should be single-minded toward one goal: contributing to the direct health and welfare of their corporation - at least while they are "on the clock".

The reason an organization hired system administrators is so that their artists, accountants, engineers (yes, engineers) and executives would not have to worry about "why the -email is down" or "why the dhcp leases have are full".

Quite simply: that is your job. You mention that you experience hours of boredom, then panic and frustration. Your hours of boredom should be filled with this: figuring out what your customers (i.e. users) really need or perhaps how you can really help your company save some money. OpenSource provides a huge opportunity here.

Divergence into OpenSource: a friend of mine was lamenting how large companies are like sheep: blindly buying MS products with licensing fees... What you could do with some of those boredom hours is this: find a small workgroup which is open to the deployment of open source tools within their unit. Likely, these would be engineers who are used to using Unix tools for CAD/CAE in the first place and would love to have seemless integration onto their desktop. Once you have your incubator up and running, you could expand the operation into other units and perhaps have everyone from engineering director on down running OpenSource tools. I digress...

Please, allow me to digress again... The purpose of an administrator is not just to service equipment and software when things go wrong. We had a "software build manager" who thought this way; yacking on the phone all day until a build failed. Then, and only then, she would get involved and start trouble shooting. We fired her and hired a new guy to do the job. He is there trimming the build tree, making organizational suggestions, confering with developers to implement build and release procedures. He is forward looking and automating the process. When a tool needs improved or replaced he is there making suggestions. I do not think you could find an hour of boredom in his day.

Administering, whether it be network, servers, workstations, is necessarily a support function. What would make your users happy? Likely if they left an email or phone message that said "my e-mail doesn't work, please fix it". And then, in a timely fashion, it would be fixed. In the mean time they would perform functions which do not require a particular service until you had it fixed. They do not know your lingo - they may have never read an RFC, they may have never read the user's manual or your FAQ. Why? Because they were not hired to do that and more importantly that is not where their passions lie. Have you *ever* read the employee's handbook that HR handed you the day you were hired? Do you even know where it is? Face it: you could spend your entire career reading all the documents that you are supposed to read (trade journals, quality process meetings, test documents, product specifications, test equipment manuals, ...) and never produce anything.

I think that your hours of boredom would be better spent getting out of the cube (quit reading slashdot on company time) and into the cubes of your customers. Fix their problem right there, on the spot when feasible. Face to face encouters lead to education for those resisting education.

Nat

Beg to differ

The reason an organization hired system administrators is so that their artists, accountants, engineers (yes, engineers) and executives would not have to worry about "why the -email is down" or "why the dhcp leases have are full".

Your right of course they should not worry about why. But they should know the difference between not being able to check their yahoo mail and company mail, and that the admins cannot do anything about yahoo being down. They should be able to copy and paste, open up their web browser, check their email and move about their system without holding their hands each and every single time.Ever get calls "My computer is broken and I have a deadline to meet" only to drop everything you are doing to run to their aid to find out their power strip is not on!!! Common sense.....nothing more. If a user does not understand something we take the time if possible to explain in a way they will understand. Not talking down to anyone just speaking on a level they understand.We offer training, send out notices of dates and times.....no one, or only a few people show up to it. But they will call and complain about this or that within the program not working the way they seem to think it should. Show up for training and learn how to make the program do what you want it to.
Your correct, certainly not everyone is literate with computers, I understand that, but dag nab it use the resources that we offer to learn more about your computer so that you can do your job better so we can work on the bigger issues with the wan/lan environment.

Just my opinion,
Ray

Beg to differ too
The truth is that we could use some cooperation and cooperation on all sides.

System Administrators are fond of saying that theirs is a thankless job. They are usually 100% correct. They work long nights, deal with problems most End Users couldn't and don't need to understand, and tend to develop anti-social communication styles with their End Users(aka "The IS God Complex") because of a lack of appreciation and comments like "Wish we had a real MIS department." Who can blame them?

End users are fond of saying that System Administrators are rude to them. They are usually 100% correct. End Users work long nights, deal with problems most System Administrators couldn't and don't need to understand, and tend to develop distrust and fear of the System Administrators because of a lack of cooperation and grunts of "I have root -- your email is toast". Who can blame them?

WAKE UP: You can learn from each other. You can thank each other. You can play UT with each other.

End Users need to listen and remember and say "Thank you" to the System Administrators every once in a while.

System Administrators need to help and teach and fix and say "You're welcome" to the End Users every once in a while.

Can't we all just get along?

Maybe so, maybe not
There is a reason you have a hard time motivating
people to maintain their computers themselves.
Different people have different reasons. Most
revolve around people's perceptions that their
skill sets are what gets their job done, and
that anything which prevents doing just what
they expect themselves to be doing is
interference.

You can't change people. I've found the best
way to deal with it is just to grin and bear
it. There are some who don't learn, and some
who do. Taking time to explain the cause of
the problem while you are fixing it, or just
after, is much better in getting the
open-minded ones to go along.

You can't force others to do what you want.
The only other solution is to get big enough
in your company to mandate computer training,
and get all the managers to schedule their
employees for it. And you will still have
problems.

Most people are so disinterested and their
jobs are so distinct from computer user skills
that they can't learn the complex behaviors
without constant repetition - just like you
have.

Neat, huh?

Gotta agree with this.

> System Administrators need to help and
> teach and fix and say "You're welcome"
> to the End Users every once in a
> while.
>
> Can't we all just get along?
>

Thing is, theres more than one way to do it. Instead of training sessions, why not make training packs? i.e., a few sides of paper detailing the common problems. Flowcharting is great for this. Make a big flowchart cutting out all the common problems and at the bottom if the problem is not solved then write 'please phone me'.

The thing is, end users are not inclined to take time out of their day (unpaid) when they do enough work as it is. I appreciate where you're coming from but unless you translate common solutions into a format a regular user will understand then they will want their hand holding the whole time.

Regards
Mike

Some users are just dumb as rocks.
I hate to say it but some people are surprisingly stupid. I think they have to decide to be that way on purpose. One of my favorite examples was at a University I worked at for a while. Every night this one professor would turn off the print server and every morning call me up to complain that nobody in her department could print so every morning I'd walk clear across campus to turn the print server back on because for some reason she could hit the power switch to turn it off but not to turn it on. Every day I'd tell her not to turn it off but she'd do it anyway. Almost ever professor in their department would print out each email and web page they looked at and they kept running out of toner much quicker than any other department and somehow this was always my fault. The school wasn't willing to set them up a special more economical printer for this use and they wouldn't stop using their printer this way so about once a week their department of less than a dozen users had to have a new $40 toner cartridge. Sometimes it's really quite amazing how otherwise intelligent people will behave. :)

A SysAdim's Time
I agree completely with this artical. No matter how well a site is set up, you will run into times of panic. The rest of the time is just routine.
However, I find that one thing is great for when things do go wrong. A problem form sheet. Either in paper or an HTML document.
It should include the person's name ( and login name ) the time the problem occured, what the problem is and the work station on which the problem occured.
This cuts back on the when, where and what questions that you have to ask later. It's all there for them to fill out and e-mail or slip into your "in" basket.

Re: Some users are just dumb as rocks.

> I hate to say it but some people are
> surprisingly stupid. I think they have
> to decide to be that way on purpose. One
> of my favorite examples was at a
> University I worked at for a while.
> Every night this one professor would
> turn off the print server and every
> morning call me up to complain that
> nobody in her department could print so
> every morning I'd walk clear across
> campus to turn the print server back on
> because for some reason she could hit
> the power switch to turn it off but not
> to turn it on. Every day I'd tell her
> not to turn it off but she'd do it
> anyway.

This is pretty loopy. I suppose you didn't have the power to say, "No, I'm not walking over there again. You know the thing you turned off last night? Turn it back on."?

Since my roommate probably won't read this article in a timely fashion, I'll relate this nugget of joy:

At a certain location at a company which shall remain nameless, there was a computer program which printed out 4 copies of every report. It had been designed to do this, but no one was sure why. The woman who was using this program would do certain things with 3 of the copies, and then throw the 4th one away (every time; the 4th one was utterly useless).

The IT staff discovered this and fixed the program to print only 3 copies. The user complained.

> Almost ever professor in their
> department would print out each email
> and web page they looked at and they
> kept running out of toner much quicker
> than any other department and somehow
> this was always my fault. The school
> wasn't willing to set them up a special
> more economical printer for this use and
> they wouldn't stop using their printer
> this way so about once a week their
> department of less than a dozen users
> had to have a new $40 toner cartridge.
> Sometimes it's really quite amazing how
> otherwise intelligent people will
> behave. :)

Now this is something that really steams my carpets. There's almost never any reason to do such things. The small office where I work is constantly littered with paper. Most of this paper is useless printouts of things, and many of these printouts were never even taken by the people who printed them. So not only is the very limited budget being wasted, but the office is a mess. Svell.

However, I must say that my users are generally pretty good. Some of them even use the X terminals every once in a while (when all the Win98 machines are taken). This may or may not be because above the X terminals on the wall, there is a giant poster with a picture of the KDE desktop and explanations of how to use it.

My main problem (and this has been improving!) is that in the past, people would not tell me when things were broken. I don't use our webmail system, so when the installation of phplib broke it, I had no idea until someone thought to mention it to me weeks later. Apparently, it was OK to do without their email for 2+ weeks...It took me about one minute to fix it. In a small office where most people use a common computer room (ie, only a few have their own offices with their own computer), sometimes I'd love to get a nice vague problem report, just so that I can be aware of brokenness :)

And I'm definitely with you on the "smart people can act really dumb sometimes" front. Some people do seem to have mental blocks about computers, and simply refuse to learn the most basic of things. (I understand that some people have no interest in computers, and that's fine, as long as these people don't have to use them at work. In that case, it's a "job skill", and you will learn because you should learn. But I'm talking about people who are otherwise very intelligent, need to use a computer for some aspect of their life, and are unnaturally afraid of it.)

--Ray

Think: Is your salary is higher than the average of your users?
Sys admins generally get paid reasonably well.

Open letters are great; we all love to rant. You are probably right.

But sys admins are there because they have skills which their users may never have. You can't get non tech minded people to care.

But you can strive to make the situation foolproof. Not accepting support questions from people who don't follow procedures is the best way out.

If you can't do that, then bring it up in meetings. Make procedures known. Have mailing lists and forums that are pushed to people, instead of forcing them to go check an FAQ.

People in jobs are often not inspired by much, there to earn money, and blame other people. If you're lucky and hang on in there, you might prove by your pay packet that you are the one with whom the buck stops. If not, then make sure your boss knows about it.

Re: No, this is not right
% First and foremost: Not all computer
> users are computer literate. They were
> hired because (hopefully) they are
> "sufficiently skilled" in some other art
> which directly or indirectly contributes
> to the value of their company. It is
> that simple.

I'm sorry. It's not that simple... nothing is. A regional outside salesman cannot simply be good at selling: he or she must be reasonably skilled at operating a motor vehicle. Someone who deals with documents all day cannot repeatedly break the copier and expect favorable reviews. A system administrator cannot simply do her job without being nice to the end-user; people skills are required, too.

Likewise, in this day and age, if you are in a position that requires computer use, it is expected that you understand or be willing to learn their proper operation. "Delete any unnecessary email" is as straightforward a directive as "Reset the copier options after use". If you don't understand, ask someone who does. It's your job.

> The reason an organization hired
> system administrators is so that their
> artists, accountants, engineers (yes,
> engineers) and executives would not have
> to worry about "why the -email is down"
> or "why the dhcp leases have are
> full".

I couldn't agree more... end users should not be concerned with the details of a DHCP broadcast or an inet problem, but I don't think that is the issue here. It has been my humble experience, though, that the DHCP server doesn't run out of numbers nearly as often as users change Network Neighborhood settings, and email servers aren't down nearly as often as Netscape preferences are 'adjusted'. So why was I hired? To go behind folks that thought they could do my job (even though their champion argued that they were not hired for their computer skills)?

Fortunately, this is not the sort of fire I most often put out. I am most often responding to pleas for help with MS Word and Netscape Messenger. I have access to these folks resumes, and believe me, the software skill set gets pumped way up. You could be right - I might be overexpecting, but when you indicate that you have 4 years experience with Word, I expect you to know how to use styles and sections to lay out a document. And I am a very patient person with a user's first few experiences with mailbox space exhaustion. But the 10th time I have to point out that folder full of "WhyMenDon'tDoDishes.jpg" crap, I get a little testy.

> Quite simply: that is your job. You
> mention that you experience hours of
> boredom, then panic and frustration.
> Your hours of boredom should be filled
> with this: figuring out what your
> customers (i.e. users) really need or
> perhaps how you can really help your
> company save some money.

That is precisely what I do, because I don't make the company any money. At least, that is the management perspective. I earn all the disrespect of a cost center: management looks at me like a leaky faucet. And unfortunately, a good bit of my efforts involve telling folks that what they are doing is inefficient. This does not stroke the ego (no, sysadmins are not the only egomaniacs in the building). So I come across as being someone that... well, someone folks don't care much for. It doesn't matter that I try to smile and say "please thank you I love you".

"What my customers really need" and what my customers really want are two opposite ends of two different universes. My suggestions might be humbling, nerdy, cryptic, or just plain unsexy, but I'm not being dramatic when I say that, were my marketing department left to their own philosophies on file storage, backup schedules, bandwidth usage, email organization or virus checking, we'd all be looking for new jobs. Strangely enough, you seem to agree here without concurring that perhaps, the user should humbly heed the advice of the sysadmin.

> Administering, whether it be network,
> servers, workstations, is necessarily a
> support function. What would make your
> users happy? Likely if they left an
> email or phone message that said "my
> e-mail doesn't work, please fix it".
> And then, in a timely fashion, it would
> be fixed. In the mean time they would
> perform functions which do not require a
> particular service until you had it
> fixed. They do not know your lingo -
> they may have never read an RFC, they
> may have never read the user's manual or
> your FAQ. Why? Because they were not
> hired to do that and more importantly
> that is not where their passions lie.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And I know you winced when you typed it, because you know it's not true. It bears repeating: if your argument were correct, then you would effectively be telling me that it's ok for me not to be nice to the end user, because that's not where my "passions lie". All I have to do is fix the machine. Life is complex. Many tasks involve using a computer, a pencil, a copier, a car, a smile, a calculator, a ruler, a book, a torque wrench. You must know how to use your tools. Period. An argument to the contrary is... unconscionable.

> Have you *ever* read the employee's
> handbook that HR handed you the day you
> were hired?

I know exactly where that manual is... I have read it, and I participate in writing it. It is integrated with the Network policy and usage guide at my company, and it is reviewed with each new employee. Does this make us different than most? Perhaps. Does this mean I don't get unnecessary support calls? Nope.

By the way, please don't assume that I am rude or abrupt with users, or that all of my users are troublesome. I am very polite and cheerful, and inject a fair amount of pleasant or self effacing humor into both conversations and training materials. Many of my users do comprehend styles and sections, and lots of other things. However, when discussing the situation amongst peers, I will address the problem, and tell it like it is.

The argument the author was originally trying to make was that sysadmin's attempts to help the user often fall on deaf ears. The point you make is quite similar - that users often don't care to be educated, and have neither the time nor inclination to "read the manual" if it doesn't relate directly to their "passions". I don't think you disagree, even though you seem to think you do, and I don't think you helped the case of the end-user much, if at all.

There's more to it than that.
Unless I missed something, it seems to me no one has really addressed company size and its policies as being a major contributor to this great divide between system administrators and users. In addition, I believe there should also be some consideration given to the competency level of the manager doing the hiring -- or at least the person's honesty. In any even, we can argue theory all day long, but in in my opinion any effort to "help users help themselves" will require all interested parties to understand the limitation of their service agreements -- if not their company's computer policies.

For instance, what is your company's policy towards equipment or infrastructure upgrades? If it's fairly aggressive, then buy a 60 gig drive for those users having "hard disk full" issues. If that is not an option, then that's company policy. Granted, in the latter case your management are a bunch of idiots -- still, consider too they might have hired the sysadmin to enforce this policy. Likewise, the feeble brain of some managers might have mislead a sysadmin to believe the job was just to do backups and keep the network running with no mention of the need to provide application support.

Of course, there are those self-sacrificing sysadmins out there willing to cut their mortal lifespans by a third in dealing with the stresses of trying to be a jack-of-all-trades. Well good for them! However, I for one don't see why in setting up SAMBA, NIS, NFS, print queues, data servers or have DNS dynamically update with DHCP leases precludes that I must also provide expert support in using stuff like MacPaint. If your company can not afford a single application support person, then that is still a management problem. Your management should either clarify the job description of a sysadmin, or otherwise make known to employees their individual responsibilities in maintaining equipment.

Re: No, this is not right
You can't expect too much from the user. From the user's point of view, they want to be able to just turn it on and do whatever they need to do. You can expect user's do read FAQ's or read manuals.

This is not black and white however. If a person's position was an office clerk and they had to type letters all the time, you would expect them to know how to use sections and styles. However, the users should not need to perform maintance operations. It may seem simple to you, as a system admin, but some users find this things extremly complex. For example, at the university I go to there is a photocopier. When ever I need to use it, I have to work out the oriented of the page required, how to get the zoom I need, and when finished how to reset the settings. Being generally interested in such devices I will explore the use of the photocopier. But if you were to get an education student for example, all they want to do is copy the page.

It is important to realise this, and this is why you have been employed as an system admin. Although they may not make this clear when you apply for a position, system admin should expect this from users. It's an unwritten rule about the job. All jobs have this sorts of things, so stop whining.

And before you flame me, I would like to point out that I'm also a system admin. I run two NT machines with IIS and Exchange, DNS, DHCP service for 12 machines. A gateway with routing software. A linux box web caching proxy, another linux web server with email, dns, nntp. And a third linux machine with SAMBA and a number of other services. Thank.

Re: Some users are just dumb as rocks.

> Every night this one professor would
> turn off the print server and every
> morning call me up to complain that
> nobody in her department could print so(...)

i once had a similar problem, a manager used to turn the mail/print server off and i had to climb 4 floors to turn it on, so i removed the power switch from the desktop ! ( actually that was such an improvement that i removed the power switches from a couple of my servers also ).

;o)

I know what you mean
I support a company, I have had the same users ring me and say.

"my login doesn't work!"

it is a numeric login, the problem is that they tend to turn off the number lock, and so they can't use the keypad. I get this at least once per day, per user always from the same people. To make it worse it is in the manaul, but it has never been opened.

Many of the problems are UI design issues

> You are so right!! I am the network
> admin for a school district. Last year
> we introduced a new grading program for
> the teachers. This grading program would
> integrate with our student information
> database program. We gave everyone a
> year to learn the grading program, while
> we tested and worked out as many bugs as
> we could with our student database
> program. A year later we start training
> the staff on the database program and
> when it came time to start entering
> grades for the first quarter of the
> school year, only a handfull of teachers
> had actually used and learned the grade
> program from a year earlier. And guess
> what most of them did.....complained
> about not having any training (yes it
> was provided to them) complained that it
> was different from the program they like
> to use (that won't integrate with the
> database program) and on an on......
> If our users out there would only
> understand that we are here to actually
> HELP them and that computing and
> networking is not some incantation that
> only great wizards know, but that it is
> something they can learn and pass on
> their knowledge on to their co-workers
> to then help them.

Many problems with end-users not understanding something or not liking to do something are often the result of a badly designed interfaces. The program you mention most likely had such a beast (the accent here is on beast). The stupid people here were not the end-users but the IT people for the school district. There seems to be this attitude among IT people that as long as a program does everything technical that needs to be done, one program is just as good as the other. But the job of the program is not to be technical, it's to help an end-user communicate with a computer and get their job done. This is especially important when you consider that the software might be used 9 hours day, 7 days a week, for years on end. If the program does that job very poorly and it's very confusing and inefficient from an interaction standpoint, the end user ends up being stressed, performance lags, they end up hating computers (which is basically why we have the tech slump today), and they end up calling sysadmins to fix this situation (which in many ways is the punishment fitting the crime. You choose the crappy software, you ignore human-computer interaction issues, you deal with the consequences).

From what I can gather from the story, I think the school district should have taken a look at how the teachers interacted with their computers. Once the school had started having problems with the new grading system, they should have taken a look at the previously existing system the teachers liked better and checked to see if there was any way to implement the stuff teachers liked in the new program.

Aside from programs with badly designed UI's, often sysadmins have ways of setting up systems that make them confusing and unusable. They might write a piece of documentation that ends up making the end-user more confused than when they started out. Or they might make a procedure for doing something on the computer or over the network so ridiculously difficult that the only way a user can perform the task is to have support staff do it.

Many of the problems are USER issues!!!

> Many problems with end-users not
> understanding something or not liking to
> do something are often the result of a
> badly designed interfaces. The program
> you mention most likely had such a beast
> (the accent here is on beast). The
> stupid people here were not the
> end-users but the IT people for the
> school district. There seems to be this
> attitude among IT people that as long as
> a program does everything technical that
> needs to be done, one program is just as
> good as the other. But the job of the
> program is not to be technical, it's to
> help an end-user communicate with a
> computer and get their job done. This is
> especially important when you consider
> that the software might be used 9 hours
> day, 7 days a week, for years on end. If
> the program does that job very poorly
> and it's very confusing and inefficient
> from an interaction standpoint, the end
> user ends up being stressed, performance
> lags, they end up hating computers
> (which is basically why we have the tech
> slump today), and they end up calling
> sysadmins to fix this situation (which
> in many ways is the punishment fitting
> the crime. You choose the crappy
> software, you ignore human-computer
> interaction issues, you deal with the
> consequences).
>
> From what I can gather from the story,
> I think the school district should have
> taken a look at how the teachers
> interacted with their computers. Once
> the school had started having problems
> with the new grading system, they should
> have taken a look at the previously
> existing system the teachers liked
> better and checked to see if there was
> any way to implement the stuff teachers
> liked in the new program.
>
> Aside from programs with badly
> designed UI's, often sysadmins have ways
> of setting up systems that make them
> confusing and unusable. They might write
> a piece of documentation that ends up
> making the end-user more confused than
> when they started out. Or they might
> make a procedure for doing something on
> the computer or over the network so
> ridiculously difficult that the only way
> a user can perform the task is to have
> support staff do it.

It is quite obvious to me that you have not worked in an environment where everything goes to a committee. The IT department was not involved in the purchase of this program, district staff members that chose to be involved in the decision making process of choosing a program decided on this one. The other staff members that did not participate are the whiners and should therefore shut the hell up!!! Yes I mean that.....either participate or quit complaining (Everyone had the opportunity). It was their piers that chose this program not the IT department but it is our department who is stuck with supporting it and stuck with supporting users that seem to play dumb when it suits their needs. Not very grown up for so called educated individuals who are teaching our kids.

I suggest that before you jump to conclusions about what our IT department is and does you should participate (if you do not already) in the purchase of any software you have to use and bear with the IT department who does not receive the necessary training on that very software that you may use for your job, but who never the less have to support you when you cry for help because you are too friggen lazy to use the built in help feature, talk to a user in your building or go to training when it is offered or even better RTFM that we take the time to put online so you can read it any time any where.

Re: I know what you mean

> I support a company, I have had the same
> users ring me and say.
>
> "my login doesn't work!"
>
> it is a numeric login, the problem is
> that they tend to turn off the number
> lock, and so they can't use the keypad.
> I get this at least once per day, per
> user always from the same people. To
> make it worse it is in the manaul, but
> it has never been opened.
>
>

you should sugest putting a post-it note on the monitor reminding them to turn number lock on before loging in.

Hmm...
Well I tend to agree with this article, mostly because it's happened to me before (the usual "it don't work" - "did you read the FAQ?" - "no" exchange).

However I'm lucky now. I just joined a startup company, and I'm employee #2. The advantage of this is that I already have my Linux and OpenBSD machines firmly entrenched in the server room, I have a collection of windows FAQ's and other materials available - and most of all, my boss lets me do things the way I want them to.

Every new person coming into the company will get a nice little 5 page document explaining some of the basics - they'll have to sign it before they get a login and password from me. A bit harsh maybe, but at least it'll get the point across that if they give me as much information as possible, that I'll be able to help them with their problem a lot faster and a hell of a lot more pleasant than if they don't give me anything but "it broke".

*shrug* just my 2 cents really :)

How arrogant?
Did you ever stop to think that perhaps it is you who is not doing your job properly? If the users who it's your job to support are constantly having the same difficulties, you might want to consider that you're not helping them sufficiently. Don't expect them to understand computers in the same way you do. If they did, they might have your job instead of theirs. They're almost certainly not stupid; they just have a different mindset to you. Why don't you adjust yours to meet theirs, rather than expect them to have your understanding?

Re: How arrogant?

> Did you ever stop to think that perhaps
> it is you who is not doing your job
> properly? If the users who it's your job
> to support are constantly having the
> same difficulties, you might want to
> consider that you're not helping them
> sufficiently. Don't expect them to
> understand computers in the same way you
> do. If they did, they might have your
> job instead of theirs. They're almost
> certainly not stupid; they just have a
> different mindset to you. Why don't you
> adjust yours to meet theirs, rather than
> expect them to have your
> understanding?
>

So, does this mean that it is the fault of the mechanic if the user, err, driver kills his or her car because they ignored instructions to change/add oil? You may think that this is disingenuous example but sys admins are usually hired to look after the company's computer network and systems, not to cater to every whim the user has.

I have never been a sys admin but am a programmer who goes to them only when I need or realize that I am about to do serious harm to the system. Yes, I have more technical savvy than the average company drone but I also take the time to learn. No matter how busy you are, you MUST know how to perform the most basic tasks. One of these tasks is knowing that you must learn how to use your tools. Your car is a tool, just as your computer is. You can go to a mechanic every time you run out of gas or need to refill your wiper fluid; you will certainly spend a lot of money. The sys admin is a mechanic who services a large number of 'vehicles' - instructions from them are too be ignored at the users peril.

While users may not be stupid, they can do stupid things. And the main problem is that users suffer no consequences from their 'stupid' actions, whereas almost other sort of job does.

'How arrogant?', eh? I think that the most arrogance came from you ... but <Dennis Miller>that's just my opinion, I could be wrong</Dennis Miller>

Re: Can I relate!
This is JUST the right post to explain why IT and users have such a hard time getting together. Maybe people should start talking to each other.

You created a new program, yet never asked the users what they might like or dislike, and then you are surprised they don't like it?

Unless users and administrators keep close contact, you are always bound to see the stupid user/mean administrator clash.

Ask your people what they want. If they make mistakes, find ways to prevent the mistakes. (See above about removing a power switch).

Just handing them a manual is not achieving a thing. Help your users, don't subjugate them.

> You are so right!! I am the network
> admin for a school district. Last year
> we introduced a new grading program for
> the teachers. This grading program would
> integrate with our student information
> database program. We gave everyone a
> year to learn the grading program, while
> we tested and worked out as many bugs as
> we could with our student database
> program. A year later we start training
> the staff on the database program and
> when it came time to start entering
> grades for the first quarter of the
> school year, only a handfull of teachers
> had actually used and learned the grade
> program from a year earlier. And guess
> what most of them did.....complained
> about not having any training (yes it
> was provided to them) complained that it
> was different from the program they like
> to use (that won't integrate with the
> database program) and on an on......
> If our users out there would only
> understand that we are here to actually
> HELP them and that computing and
> networking is not some incantation that
> only great wizards know, but that it is
> something they can learn and pass on
> their knowledge on to their co-workers
> to then help them.
>
> Ray

Users skill sets
I am the IS department for a small nursing home chain, and judging from the comments above, my job must be cake compared to some of yours.
For example, earlier this year, all current employees were mandated to show (via tests administered by me) a minimum skill level in Windows and Word, the two big programs used here (this came from the CEO). In addition, all new employees would be required to show competency in these areas. Now the skill levels are not major items, but basics like changing fonts, using tabs, alignments, headers and footers, etc in Word and using Explorer, creating shortcuts, new folders, deleting unnecessary files and folders, etc in Windows.
To help users obtain these basic skill levels, classes were offered to all users in 3 hour blocks over the course of a month before the tests were administered, on company time. Users who failed to pass the tests would have a month to prepare and retake it. Failure again would be factored in to their perfomance evaluation.
Unfortunately, we still have many users with little to no understanding of what is involved in many IS/IT tasks and they don't really want to know. To steal a phrase from our maintenance people, a lot of users expect that they can call you and you can "Wave the Wand" to fix the problem.
I have learned the best way to deal with these types of people is to a) Over estimate the time required to do the job and b) Inundate them with information, progress reports, etc. When you get it done earlier than you told them, you look like a "can-do" type of person, and by constantly feeding them information, they feel you are "on the job" and they are "in the loop".

the other side of the coin
hi,
i have been a s/w developer for over 3 years.
as the sys admin said, i have taken keen
interest in studying the tools that i use.
so i am well comfortable with unix, networking
windoz etc. etc.
but there are some times when u do need a sysadmin.
e.g if ur X windows session hangs and there is
no other place for u to log in.
u have to call the sys admin to login as root and
kill ur session.
there are many situations where a root password
is reqd. and i don't have access to one.

under these circumstances i have found it very
helpful to act as a complete fool. this is bcos,
most sys admins think u are a fool and ask u to
do very funny things.
one sysadmin told me in detail how to minimise a window so that i can see network neighbourhood icon on desktop, when all i
wanted to know was the DNS Server's IP address, which was changed over the week end.
so the best thing for me todo is act like
i don't know anything,so get come over here and
see for your self what the problem is.
this saves a lot of time, especially mine, cos i
dont have to answer questions like
did u shut down ur machine properly the last time ?
can u see the C drive icon in explorer ?
can u type "ls" and then hit enter and tell me
the output ?
can u hit the OK button ???

Re:Help Me Help You
Definition of a seasoned sysadmin:
A person who know accounting better than the accountant, management better than the management, engineering better than the engineers, psychology better than the shrinks, ...
As we all know: when the sysadmin gets sick, all h*** breaks loose.

Basically
Basically, 90 % of all users are stupid.

Basically, 6 % of all users are experienced and welcome.

Basically, 4 % of all users think they're experienced and are hated.

I've been an admin for 6 years in three diferrent/big companies and I must say ... the article's been written in too kind way ... :-)

Re: the other side of the coin
If this is the case, your Sysadmin was ill-educated, and thought too much of himself. Though, unless you have regular contact with the SA, he may not readily know how skilled you are, in which case, he, or I (as an SA myself), for that matter, will proceed through the steps from the beginning, rather than waste time spouting info that might just be meaningless to you. Everything depends on how the questions are phrased as to how we present the info to you. If you say, "I can't get out to the net, " and he (or I) knows that the DNS server IP changed, he's going to walk you through the process of changing the DNS IP in your network settings. If, on the other hand, you ask "Did you guys change the DNS server last night," he might then just say, "Yeah, we did. The new IP is a.b.c.d," and you can be on your way.

Re: the other side of the coin

Quote:e.g if ur X windows session hangs and
there is no other place for u to log in. u have to call the sys admin to login as root and kill ur session. there are many situations where a root
password is reqd. and i don't have access to
one.

You are either talking as someone who has not a clue how to interface with an UNIX-type Operating System, or one who has a terrible admin (or both). You can log in a different term, simply by hitting [ALT][F2], [F3], etc. Each one up to [F5] on an i386 Install allows you access to a new term. You simply log in a kill the process. But, this is evidence of poor setup in the first place. (oh, and you could also hit [ctrl][alt][backspace] to kill the X session)

I realize that admins often leave users high and dry. See, they are often not good decision makers or are protagonists. The fact is you can design your network in a way that forces your users to do things more intelligently. The fact that this original article is talking about Outlook - and a sys admin scares me. No sys admin in his right mind would suggest you use Outlook. It is a security nightmare. I bet he spends a fair amout of time removing trojans installed by Microsoft's Scripting Host and a Ill Intended Email. Sad! It takes some convincing of management to let you do your job. But, any sys admin worth his salt could design a network that required practically no support to end users.

So, what is the real demon? It really isn't the user. They are suppose to be ignorant. And, we could let them stay that way. Why are they allowed to admin their own machines while proudly displaying ignorance about the most basic of Operating System issues? Why? Cause Microsoft sold you on that idea! Why did they do that. Oh, that is a lesson in Economics - this forum will likely not tolerate such a display of technical and fundamentally political/social/capital savvy knowledge. So, to get basic - they make more money when things really don't work correctly. Upgrades and New Sales require new needs and problems.

Basically, your management does not allow a real IT/IS Professional to make decisions. Why? Well, that is an easier thing to describe. They are full of themselves! All Corporate guys are. I am one, so I know. Nobody can possibly make a decision better than I can. So, why would I listen to someone just because they have more experience and knowledge about the subject? The fact is, they own a Windows box that Microsoft has convinced them they can run on their own. The truth is they seldom do more than balance a checkbook (not complicated IT functionality) on a single machine running a single program and/or play solitaire. They get in the office, and the computing system look similar to them. Sure, they are exponentially more complicated and essential. But, they fancy themselves savvy enough to make a buying decision. The truth is, few are even savvy enough to know the difference between a sys admin that plays Quake all day and the one that actually does something useful. They don't know who to trust, so they trust their gut - and it tells them to stick with the Devil they know. Unfortunitely, it is usually crap!

So, users - understand that the sys admin is working with his hands tied behind his back. Ask him, sincerely, what he would do differently. Admins, realize that being ignorant is an American privalege. What good is being free if you can't act stupid. Seriously, if they wanted to be IT Professionals they would be a geek like you. So, lighten up and give them something pretty to play with. Make their system do what it needs to do and that's it! Take as much control and potential to screw up out of their hands as possible. That usually includes dumping any program Internet related that comes from Redmond. Any time you have to do more than an update a week, you are running the wrong software. Even Linux is more stable than that.

Re: the other side of the coin

> Quote:e.g if ur X windows session hangs
> and
> there is no other place for u to log
> in. u have to call the sys admin to
> login as root and kill ur session. there
> are many situations where a root
> password is reqd. and i don't have
> access to
> one.
>
> You are either talking as someone who
> has not a clue how to interface with an
> UNIX-type Operating System, or one who
> has a terrible admin (or both). You can
> log in a different term, simply by
> hitting [ALT][F2], [F3], etc. Each one
> up to [F5] on an i386 Install allows you
> access to a new term. You simply log in
> a kill the process. But, this is
> evidence of poor setup in the first
> place. (oh, and you could also hit
> [ctrl][alt][backspace] to kill the X
> session)

And u look like the guy who has worked only on linux or at best i386 unix systems.
what ur talking abt are virtual consoles but sadly they are not available on sparc m/c with solaris running on them.
Also let me enlighten u, As much as i luv linux, most enterprises today dont deploy linux, they mostly use solaris
(although this picture is slowly changing).

And the things u mentioned don't work in solaris. or for that matter HP/UX as well. as far as i know they are linux specific.
Also most enterprise companies, prefer to manage the workstations centrally.
its one thing to have your own m/c and doing what u want to do with it, and totally different thing to work in a controlled environment, where all your activities are audited and recorded.

btw just to let u know, i have worked with tandem mainframes (ever heard of them ), HP UX , Sun Solaris , various linuxes.

Uh duh... good point ? or, not.
I said:

%% on an i386 Install allows...

You said:

> And u look like the guy who has worked
> only on linux or at best i386 unix
> systems.

I should know not to partipate in such forums. I was
talking specifically about i386 solutions for that problem -
and that would be why I said so. Hm... any further
response is a waste of time since you did not get the
primary pulse of my post and chose to make some type of
silly 'admin' attack on my 'experience' level. But, wasting
more time... I might suggest that some of the admin/
user problems reside in issues I specifically mention and
NOT Unix-type operating systems. But, you ignored that
point... I am sure most others will as well.

Re: the other side of the coin

% And u look like the guy who has worked

> only on Linux or at best i386 unix

> systems.

Well, OpenBSD is UNIX... don't confuse it with the Linux Weenies.

% what ur talking abt are virtual consoles

% but sadly they are not available on

% sparc m/c with solaris running on them.

This begs the question: If virtual consoles aren't available on Solaris or
HP-UX, does that make them better user interfaces? Does this mean that I have
to bring the system down just to get the console back? I know you don't have
to do that, but I'm growing tired of flames like this that don't answer the
question. I thought the question was...

"... if your X Windows session hangs and there is no other place for you
to log in, You have to call the systems administrator to login as 'root' and
kill your session. There are many situations where a 'root' password is required
and I do not have access to one." *Spelling corrected.

% Also let me enlighten u, As much as i

% luv Linux, most enterprises today dont

% deploy Linux, they mostly use solaris

% (although this picture is slowly

% changing).

um.... Yes it is changing. While quite stable, Solaris is still quite antiquated
for what it does... I've run Solaris, HP-UX, SGI, BSD, VMS, etc. Of all of them,
Linux (a NON-UNIX but UNIX-Like OS) is winning. Why? Well, lots of reasons...
but I think innovation in the face of convention would be the most likely candidate.

%

% And the things u mentioned don't work in

I'm sorry for interjecting this but, as you know, 'u' is spelled 'you'. I have
to ask to you please stop dumbing down the English language. It is a stupid
enough language already. "Assiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et
artem saepe vincit. Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere fidus interpres. Amoto
quaeramus seria ludo. Nunc est bibendum."

% solaris. or for that matter HP/UX as

% well. as far as i know they are Linux

% specific.

% Also most enterprise companies, prefer

% to manage the workstations centrally.

I completely agree. The best and worst thing that ever happened to the enterprise
desktop was giving the user control over the desktop. Novell did a good job
of keeping that under control (meaning you could wipe the machine and start
over cleanly from a centralized administrative console), but Gates and Co. 'liberated'
the desktop and OS by allowing end-users to install their own Trojan viruses
without the need for a systems administrator. Lets face it... Was there any
threat to an enterprise system before the PC became common place? The threat
was there, but very minimal.

% its one thing to have your own m/c and

% doing what u want to do with it, and

% totally different thing to work in a

% controlled environment, where all your

% activities are audited and recorded.

I agree and have since started advocating "almost" dumb terminals
for most enterprise applications. The TCO is far too high for thick-client applications
deployed to an unmanaged desktop. A better approach is a completely Internet-native
(preferably html/xml deployed using Apache) based applications. The only real
reason PCs became so pervasive is due to the freeform, carefree nature of the
spreadsheet. The complete saturation of the spreadsheet combined with the desktop-database
has ruined all hopes of ever returning to a "dumb terminal".

For me, it is a "Odi et amo" relationship. The flexibility of "what-if"
scenarios and modeling that the spreadsheet combined with the desktop-database
gives, allows the business manager unparalleled decision making power. Unfortunately,
the common business user doesn't have a clue how to use these tools correctly
thus making the justification for their use and thus the existence of the PC
questionable at best.

%

% btw just to let u know, i have worked

% with tandem mainframes (ever heard of

% them ), HP UX , Sun Solaris , various

% linuxes.

Yeah... so. I use a Mountain Bike, a Land Rover, a Hog, and a really nice Yacht.
Do I lose or win? Does anyone care?

How do I get my X Session back if it locks up on a Solaris or HP-UX machine?
I've never used X on either OS just like I didn't use X on AIX, SGI, Cray or
anything but the 3270 screens on System 360/390.

I have got to find a more useful waste of my time than reading/responding to
useless banter. I think I will take up flying and go purchase that Gulfstream
I've had my eye on.

Ciao.