I've dealt with enough developers that I'd say about 1/2 to 2/3 were competent, and some of those, while competent developers, didn't have anywhere near enough knowledge to be allowed to administer their own machine.

Of course, I'd probably say the same about 1/2 of the sysadmins I've worked with as well, and very few sysadmins have the knowledge to be competent developers. The higher percentage of incompetent sysadmins stems from not understanding security, or not understanding how to balance security with usability.

Note my use of the word knowledge -- most developers could be competent sysadmins, but don't have the knowledge base. If you're developing database-driven web applications using .NET, how likely are you to need to know details of filesystem ACLs, or how a rootkit may insert itself in to a OS kernel? How many sysadmins are going to know how to write (or even use) a database stored procedure, and more importantly, /when it's appropriate to do so?/

Unfortunately, most people don't have the wisdom to understand where their own knowledge ends. I understand quite a bit about a lot of topics, but I'm willing to let an expert (doctor, dentist, mechanic, athletic trainer, etc.) do their jobs. Why don't people have the same attitude about sysadmins? (Hint: I think it's because when you fuck up your car, you pay to fix it. If you fuck up your PC there's no direct financial penalty for you personally.)

It's not "one minute out of work."

You're focused on a large, complex problem. Someone interrupts you, and you have to go deal with them. When you get back to the large, complex problem, you lose a lot of time figuring out where you were and picking up the pieces of the troubleshooting.

That's not even factoring in that your co-worker called the help desk, someone there had a write a ticket, send it to a deskside support person, who had to leave their desk, come down, and do the "one minute" fix. Total time? Probably more like 30 minutes where your co-worker wasn't working.

I agree with one of the other posters -- I would have had *your* ass. Sending an email to the entire company to apologize to the tech? That's a cannon to kill a gnat -- but don't forget that you're the gnat, asshole.

If you really think the sysadmin is making the decision to block flickr, I (hope and expect) you're wrong. Generally, it's some asshole who's spending his day looking up nudists on flickr, someone else sees the monitor and complains, and because the asshole is the manager's nephew/golf buddy, the problem is that flickr.com was allowed -- tell the sysadmins to block it.

Even without that contrived scenario, if they're using a third-party service for the filter, like websense, you block a category -- porn, blogs, social networking, sports, gambling, etc. Because flickr has plenty of NSFW images, filters may include it in the porn category, as well as social networking (comments, friends, etc.)

If the filter is blocking it by default, in a non-work-related category (porn), how will you justify *un*blocking it?

-30-