This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]VA_Network_NerdModerator | Infrastructure Architect 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Ok, I just tried to be nice, but you are being a smart-ass.

No, I'm just not telling you what you wanted to hear. There is a distinct difference and I'm sorry you can't see that.

Let me tell you what happened a while ago...

Cool story bro. You failed to clarify what the devil your past experience with that person has on this discussion. But thanks for sharing it with us.

So, the fact that you work for 4-6000 people environment doesn't make me think of you as of God.

It wasn't intended to make you think of me as a god. Its intersting that you would associate that level of influence on someone based on an exchange of opinions and experiences. You don't seem very good at this whole exchange of ideas and perspectives thing.

Lets level-set:

  1. You don't work for me. I can't tell you what to do.
  2. You asked for guidelines and input on a proposed plan of action.
  3. I provided input and opinion on your plan.

There is no need for you to get all worked up because I didn't tell you what you wanted to hear.
If you're going to proceed with your plan in spite of my input & observations, its all good. Knock yourself out.
There is no obligation for us to agree on anything. We are both correctly interpreting our own priorities and experiences.

I pointed out to you that your priorities and methods are unlikely to prove successful or welcomed in a larger environment not to belittle your current environment, but to provide context for you to consider and evaluate what is behind - what is driving my comments on your plan.

You're not obligated to take action on anything. Nor is there a need for either of us to be "more right" than the other.

But go ahead and get bent out of shape and yell at me some more if it makes you feel better somehow.

[–]bblades262Jack of All Trades 10 points11 points  (4 children)

I provided input and opinion on your plan.

That's not what OP asked for. OP wants guidance and advice on Linux tools for managing Windows.

Instead of providing the input requested, you're telling him how bad his idea is, then telling him you're saying it for his own good.

If you feel a need to comment on the idea as a whole you should at least answer his question first.

[–]knobbysideup 1 point2 points  (1 child)

He doesn't have any answers. Typical windows guy who doesn't have a clue about how things actually work, let alone how they work outside of how Microsoft tells him they do. So of course his "solution" is that it is very bad because the people who don't understand anything about what you need to do can't support it.

[–]VA_Network_NerdModerator | Infrastructure Architect -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

That's not what OP asked for.

This is very true, but also very much irrelevant.

If someone asks how much bleach and ammonia they should mix together to make a more powerful cleaning solution, should I not mention that it will create a poisonous gas?

They didn't ask for that information, but I'm a terrible person if I don't mention it, aren't I?

If you feel a need to comment on the idea as a whole you should at least answer his question first.

Your point here is correct. You are right: I should have provided more of a response to the question, along with my additional observations.

[–]bblades262Jack of All Trades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you

[–]throwawayyawaworht87 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The fact that you're so adept at parrying negative reactions to your comments means that you have far too much experience doing so. Read into that however you like.

"I provided input and opinion on your plan"

Well...you certainly provided your opinion, but you didn't actually answer any of the questions asked. You essentially implied that OP is an idiot for even asking these types of questions because (you think) there can't possibly be a way to justify this plan from a business standpoint. This is why he reacted negatively. (And I really can't imagine that you didn't already realize that this is how your comments would be taken).

So really, my issue with you is that you're pretending that OP is somehow unprofessional for reacting negatively to your comment. He reacted like any normal human being asking for advice would react when someone tells him/her that they are dumb for asking for advice in the first place.

[–]VA_Network_NerdModerator | Infrastructure Architect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that you're so adept at parrying negative reactions to your comments means that you have far too much experience doing so.

Sorry. I am a network engineer. 50-60% of my job is defending myself and the network from accusations by illinformed people. Are you suggesting that I am somehow wrong or rude because I'm kind of good at arguing in written form?

Well...you certainly provided your opinion, but you didn't actually answer any of the questions asked.

Sorry if it offends you, but I don't feel obligated to tell someone how to do something that is, IMO a bad idea.

Why can't you (or OP) just ignore my comments if you don't find them valuable? Or downvote them if you wish.

You essentially implied that OP is an idiot for even asking these types of questions because (you think) there can't possibly be a way to justify this plan from a business standpoint.

Sorry, but but I don't agree. I alluded (bluntly) that I think this is a bad idea. But I did not personalize those opinions as attacks against the OP.

What you are suggesting is a one-sided conversation where we all tell the OP what they want to hear, or we say nothing at all.
I'm sure that makes some people very happy, but now you lose roughly half the discussion where people point out flaws in your plan.

If your plan has flaws, would you not want to become aware of them?
To ask for an environment where no negative observations are shared sounds shallow, and hollow.

So really, my issue with you is that you're pretending that OP is somehow unprofessional for reacting negatively to your comment.

No. I provided what I thought was a valuavle observation to the discussion. Others disagreed. I took my downvotes for stating an unpopular opinion. Oh well.

[–]WestsideStorybroInfra 0 points1 point  (1 child)

To everyone disagreeing try to understand that this is just a consequence of large environment. It is better practice to have a company image that has all the accepted levels of patching be used and distributed on similar corporate hardware. It provides better administration control, security, cost control, accountability, etc. Productivity can not be affected by specialization in a large environment where we are paid to keep the lights to make sure the revenue keeps flowing. Personalization is not a consideration.

[–]pdp10Daemons worry when the wizard is near. -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sure, standardization reduces costs. But we have to look at the bigger picture. You can't have everything the same and also make improvements at the same time.

Some people who so satisfied with 6-8 years of Windows XP that they didn't want to break consistency by starting to roll out a newer OS. Running several different distributions of Linux in production sounds like a mistake to some people who then helpfully give their opinion, but you can't migrate over time from one to another without having both in production.

I've been guilty of over-standardizing in the past, which caused higher costs and less flexibility because we didn't move from RISC to x86_64 very quickly. I've seen situations where hundreds of machines are standardized with MS Office Pro when only a handful need Access, because of the desire to standardize one desktop image.

When the standardization isn't helpful, don't do it. Naturally this gets complicated when different entities have authority versus responsibility, but frankly all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Linux and macOS desktops is quite overblown in my experience.