Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@wirestyle22 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender only talking about one distro would sometimes work. So often it is "it runs on these 20" though. People very often want to talk about Linux in groups of things. Or they only care that something runs on "one of several." You'll notice that I often use the term "enterprise Linux" myself as a short hand for the properly supported server focused distros (basically CentOS / RHEL, Suse and Ubuntu.)
I don't think putting enterprise in front of linux changes the situation that much. We would need to assume that they know what the enterprise is just as much as linux at that point.
Here here! How is @wrcombs supposed to know what is or is not an Enterprise Linux other than rote memorization? And isn't rote memorization what got us into so much of the trouble we were/are in today with things like RAID 5?
IMO RAID is just conceptual learning
-
@wirestyle22 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@wirestyle22 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender only talking about one distro would sometimes work. So often it is "it runs on these 20" though. People very often want to talk about Linux in groups of things. Or they only care that something runs on "one of several." You'll notice that I often use the term "enterprise Linux" myself as a short hand for the properly supported server focused distros (basically CentOS / RHEL, Suse and Ubuntu.)
I don't think putting enterprise in front of linux changes the situation that much. We would need to assume that they know what the enterprise is just as much as linux at that point.
Here here! How is @wrcombs supposed to know what is or is not an Enterprise Linux other than rote memorization? And isn't rote memorization what got us into so much of the trouble we were/are in today with things like RAID 5?
IMO RAID is just conceptual learning
Should be, yes. Had people learned by rote in the 1990s, we'd be fine today. The problem wasn't that they used rote learning, it's that they tried to simplify from what they were taught down to simplistic answers and then learned those by rote. The issue was not the rote, but the false simplification.
-
@thwr I go along with this thinking to. I would call them by the OS name and reference the family it belongs to. In referring to what to call them in general I think we refer to it by the family name. I am going to learn Redhat family OS, or Debian based OS, etc. Learning Redhat family you have Redhat, Fedora, CentOS, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@wirestyle22 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@wirestyle22 said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender only talking about one distro would sometimes work. So often it is "it runs on these 20" though. People very often want to talk about Linux in groups of things. Or they only care that something runs on "one of several." You'll notice that I often use the term "enterprise Linux" myself as a short hand for the properly supported server focused distros (basically CentOS / RHEL, Suse and Ubuntu.)
I don't think putting enterprise in front of linux changes the situation that much. We would need to assume that they know what the enterprise is just as much as linux at that point.
Here here! How is @wrcombs supposed to know what is or is not an Enterprise Linux other than rote memorization? And isn't rote memorization what got us into so much of the trouble we were/are in today with things like RAID 5?
IMO RAID is just conceptual learning
Should be, yes. Had people learned by rote in the 1990s, we'd be fine today. The problem wasn't that they used rote learning, it's that they tried to simplify from what they were taught down to simplistic answers and then learned those by rote. The issue was not the rote, but the false simplification.
I think 99% of people that attempt rote memorization do not actually apply the 'facts' they are learning to different scenarios. They don't think it will ever change or that they will be challenged on it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
The same cannot be true for Windows -> Mac -< Linux
But it can, and it is. We always say that Mac and Linux share commands natively and that Windows can use them optionally. And that knowing Linux, you can pretty much run anything, including Mac and Windows.
The idea that the only thing that matters is the superficial is, I think, the most dangerous. The reality is, no amount of knowing shared commands makes knowing Linux make you useful on VMware ESXi. The stuff that matters isn't the superficial stuff.
Boy - nothing proves that to me more than working on XenServer. Sure XS runs inside CentOS, but all the commands we really care about are all xen- commands and have nothing to do with CentOS.
The same can be said for VMWare. Sure some of the basic commands are the same, LS, RM, etc.. but these are things in the shell, not the OS.
I'd venture to say a Linux admin would have a far easier time with XS than a Windows admin.
I suppose I would agree with this only because they are more accustomed to typing commands at the command line.
Not necessarily. A lot of top Windows Admins would be pure command line, too.
Yeah, here's where we have to make sure everyone is on the same page. I told Scott the other day that I couldn't work for him as a Windows Admin - to which he replied, you're not a Windows admin, you're generalist. This is a pretty huge difference of understanding of where a person is in the lineup of jobs. I.E. I don't need to feel bad that I'm not awesome at PowerShell, because as a generalist, it's probably not really needed. But if my job was to be a Windows Admin, I should know PowerShell inside and out because that would be a huge part of my daily job managing Windows systems in an enterprise (the only ones that should ever really look at hiring Windows Admins).
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@BRRABill said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
The same cannot be true for Windows -> Mac -< Linux
But it can, and it is. We always say that Mac and Linux share commands natively and that Windows can use them optionally. And that knowing Linux, you can pretty much run anything, including Mac and Windows.
The idea that the only thing that matters is the superficial is, I think, the most dangerous. The reality is, no amount of knowing shared commands makes knowing Linux make you useful on VMware ESXi. The stuff that matters isn't the superficial stuff.
Boy - nothing proves that to me more than working on XenServer. Sure XS runs inside CentOS, but all the commands we really care about are all xen- commands and have nothing to do with CentOS.
The same can be said for VMWare. Sure some of the basic commands are the same, LS, RM, etc.. but these are things in the shell, not the OS.
I'd venture to say a Linux admin would have a far easier time with XS than a Windows admin.
I suppose I would agree with this only because they are more accustomed to typing commands at the command line.
Not necessarily. A lot of top Windows Admins would be pure command line, too.
Yeah, here's where we have to make sure everyone is on the same page. I told Scott the other day that I couldn't work for him as a Windows Admin - to which he replied, you're not a Windows admin, you're generalist. This is a pretty huge difference of understanding of where a person is in the lineup of jobs. I.E. I don't need to feel bad that I'm not awesome at PowerShell, because as a generalist, it's probably not really needed. But if my job was to be a Windows Admin, I should know PowerShell inside and out because that would be a huge part of my daily job managing Windows systems in an enterprise (the only ones that should ever really look at hiring Windows Admins).
Exactly. This is one of those places where the broad application of calling anyone and everyone that has used a mouse a "Windows Admin" really bites people in the behind. Suddenly the things you'd expect from a Windows Admin seem really over the top, and yet if you were to go work as a full time Windows Admin you'd quickly be like "I need more efficient tooling that I am used to!" Combining the two fields (or more) under one title makes for some serious problems.
-
If being called an IT generalist didn't have an eschewed connotation to the negative, we'd probably be in a better spot. I guess we need to have a better title for IT generalist, and the likely association with SMB use. That would probably go a long way toward making Windows Admin be more meaningful.
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
If being called an IT generalist didn't have an eschewed connotation to the negative, we'd probably be in a better spot.
Where does that come from? I've never heard that. I'm shocked that you think roles like architect and CIO are considered negatives.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
If being called an IT generalist didn't have an eschewed connotation to the negative, we'd probably be in a better spot.
Where does that come from? I've never heard that. I'm shocked that you think roles like architect and CIO are considered negatives.
I don't, but they don't have the word generalist in them.
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
If being called an IT generalist didn't have an eschewed connotation to the negative, we'd probably be in a better spot.
Where does that come from? I've never heard that. I'm shocked that you think roles like architect and CIO are considered negatives.
I don't, but they don't have the word generalist in them.
No, but they are generalist roles.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
If being called an IT generalist didn't have an eschewed connotation to the negative, we'd probably be in a better spot.
Where does that come from? I've never heard that. I'm shocked that you think roles like architect and CIO are considered negatives.
I don't, but they don't have the word generalist in them.
No, but they are generalist roles.
This is why I said eschewed connotation. People - rightly or wrongly - see generalist and lean toward.. .oh he can't be as good as a specialist.
As for CIO and CEO, the everyman has no real idea what those terms even mean. I'm not sure I really do, other than to say leaders of their companies/departments, as generic as that is.
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
This is why I said eschewed connotation. People - rightly or wrongly - see generalist and lean toward.. .oh he can't be as good as a specialist.
Well sure, that would be expected. That's why MSPs are important - you get specialists for more things. The idea that SMBs should have generalists for normal IT tasks is... weird to say the least.
-
Then what point do you see in the it generalist at all?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
This is why I said eschewed connotation. People - rightly or wrongly - see generalist and lean toward.. .oh he can't be as good as a specialist.
Well sure, that would be expected. That's why MSPs are important - you get specialists for more things. The idea that SMBs should have generalists for normal IT tasks is... weird to say the least.
You're making my point for me. SMBs don't look to hire generalists, they want a Windows admin because they have no idea what a real windows admin is/does.
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
Then what point do you see in the it generalist at all?
Very little
Very little compared to how they are used today, anyway. Generalists are useful for overseeing departments, but need a lot of knowledge to be truly useful. But not a lot in any one area. Not exactly managers, not overseeing people. But, for example, you could be the best network admin in the world but know nothing of systems. The best systems person in the world and know nothing of storage. The best DBA in the world and not even know what a PBX is. Someone has to oversee companies and tie these things together. That's where generalists are needed. Generalists at the bottom of the pile is inefficient - it's essentially always cheaper to have someone dedicated to any given technology or task.
-
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@scottalanmiller said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
@Dashrender said in Stop Calling it Linux, But What to Call It:
This is why I said eschewed connotation. People - rightly or wrongly - see generalist and lean toward.. .oh he can't be as good as a specialist.
Well sure, that would be expected. That's why MSPs are important - you get specialists for more things. The idea that SMBs should have generalists for normal IT tasks is... weird to say the least.
You're making my point for me. SMBs don't look to hire generalists, they want a Windows admin because they have no idea what a real
windows adminhiring manager is/does.FTFY
-
Here is a great example:
https://mangolassi.it/topic/12456/linux-system-maintenance-boot-nearly-full
Title says Linux, but what anyone going to work on it needs to know is that it is Ubuntu. Why use a title like Linux which doesn't describe the problem in a searchable way, nor does it tell us who should look to solve the issue. Titling it Ubuntu would be much more descriptive as the issue is on Ubuntu.
-
great point - all we can do is start the changes at home.
-
The Register uses the term "enterprise Linux" to qualify the RHEL/Suse/Ubuntu group.
Maybe calling them USR would work better.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/09/microsoft_eye_from_the_linux_guy/
