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.
-
@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/
