Comment Good vs Evil (Score 1) 417
Obviously this article is trash. However there are a lot of folks in the comments making some good points about how sometimes IT admins can be over-protective, too controlling, not understanding, etc. I have worked on both sides, first in IT then as a user engineer. When I was in IT, I helped my users. I would reach out to them, ask them if they needed something before they had to come to me. I made it my job to make their lives more productive - because that *was* my job. If that's all I'd done my whole life then I would right there with some of the people in this thread who are vehemently defending IT as if it can do no wrong.
However, being on the user side I can relate to those who rail against IT as well. My current company has a great department, one I'd be proud to work for myself if it paid more. But in the past, some companies I've worked for can't seem to administratively get out of their own way, from the CEO right down to the help desk staff and "marketeers." The IT staff was aggressively controlling for no reason, constantly wasted money on things we didn't need, and their personnel all banded together under the "WE ARE IT" banner, refusing to compromise. All requests, no matter how small, had to go all the way up the corporate ladder before they came back down again, just because one asshole wouldn't listen to reason.
Like anything else, there are good IT admins and bad IT admins. I understand why some people in this thread would fight for IT against this fact, because the article is unfair flamebait. But realize that not everyone is you. Some people are terrible at their job and some of those people work in IT. I have found Sturgeon's Law applicable to many situations, and judging from most "normal" users' attitudes toward their IT department it is no less relevant here. In the end though, hiring incompetent IT staff is a huge burden to a business, and those that care to select their staff carefully will do better than others. As for InfoWorld, I'm guessing they published this not because they view it as fact but because they're a shitty rag of a magazine trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of readership to boost their numbers. I am curious as to why timothy allowed this to be posted.
However, being on the user side I can relate to those who rail against IT as well. My current company has a great department, one I'd be proud to work for myself if it paid more. But in the past, some companies I've worked for can't seem to administratively get out of their own way, from the CEO right down to the help desk staff and "marketeers." The IT staff was aggressively controlling for no reason, constantly wasted money on things we didn't need, and their personnel all banded together under the "WE ARE IT" banner, refusing to compromise. All requests, no matter how small, had to go all the way up the corporate ladder before they came back down again, just because one asshole wouldn't listen to reason.
Like anything else, there are good IT admins and bad IT admins. I understand why some people in this thread would fight for IT against this fact, because the article is unfair flamebait. But realize that not everyone is you. Some people are terrible at their job and some of those people work in IT. I have found Sturgeon's Law applicable to many situations, and judging from most "normal" users' attitudes toward their IT department it is no less relevant here. In the end though, hiring incompetent IT staff is a huge burden to a business, and those that care to select their staff carefully will do better than others. As for InfoWorld, I'm guessing they published this not because they view it as fact but because they're a shitty rag of a magazine trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of readership to boost their numbers. I am curious as to why timothy allowed this to be posted.
