>>I kind of like the suggestion from a previous post that this ignorant net >>admin of yours be brought to task over his administrative decisions. Isn't >>his job ultimately to provide a network infrastructure that makes end-users >>more productive? Seems to me that his draconic "nothing but NT" stance runs >>counter to this. And this at an institute for higher learning and >>enlightened thinking... what a shame. > >Well, I _am_ the original "instigator" of the bias, as I inadvertently >brought the system to its knees with a kernel upgrade. I can't (and don't >try to) back out of that responsibility. > >But I still feel that the problems they had tracking down Me as the culprit >of the packet broadcasting issue indicates a flaw in their >abilities/available tools to manage serious problems. There was no general >communication about the problem with the general college community at all, >and I can't help but feel that I could have quickly isolated the problem (at >least) by sequentially chopping off various parts of the LAN from one another >(were I in his shoes). (And Linux worked so WELL in the system, too. Damn.)
You are right when you say that -they- should be able to manage such problems. You are only a user that did something wrong, they should have informed you about the problem and asked you to correct it. Nothing more, nothing less... >I shudder to think what would happen if a serious hacker went into the >system. (A local fellow was crackling at the sides as he told me about the >state of their firewall. But they may have tidied it up a bit since then.) > >But I may be all wet about that (I know nothing about LAN >management/setup/etc). If I was de sysadmin I would be worried that a simple problem as this would bring the LAN to its knees. I would try to fix the problem -and- do what you did all over again in a test setup to insure myself that the LAN can handle the problem... Anyway, IMHO a sysadmin that fixes problems like this is not capable to administer a LAN and should be replaced. Regards, Onno
