[geeks] SGI Sadness

[wa2egp at att.net]

> You can detect the difference between patch cable #29647 and patch cable
> #92764 ?

No, but I'm not am not an IT person. But then you probably don't know the
difference between Seaway and Fahn and Halliday and Resnick, so using
patch cable numbers is a little unfair in that respect.

> Said person could be an ex-operator who has never been re-trained.
> Sometimes training for support staff in the academic world can be
> abysmal ... I once asked for a week's course on Unix system
> administration (I was hoping to find out what I'm supposed to do (I'm
> still wondering)) to get turned down. Why? Because the cost of that one
> course (pretty average cost) was more than the entire department's
> training budget for the year.

The "tech" we have in the building was a teacher who had about ONE WEEK
of training from the "gurus" at central office.  If they have a problem
in the building, they call central and get no help at all.  The tech is
about as clueless as I am.
 
> There's all sorts of reasons why IT can sometimes be awful in education.
> Try comparing the salary of an IT technician in your place with salaries
> in the "free world" (I could probably double my salary, but I'm too
> busy having fun).

Well, our tech is still drawing teacher's salary and is at top level so
that's about $80K/year.  Tenured too.

> And it's not always the fault of the IT people ... a couple of stories
> about how academics can help cause problems :-
> 
> * From the end of the 1980s through to about 1983, my late boss would
>   regularly go to the University IT committee to present a case for
>   upgrading a VAX 11/750 to something a little less archaic. The
>   academics representing the users would regularly say no. And a little
>   later in the same meeting would pass along complaints about how bad
>   the performance of this VAX was.

That's why I have an Ultra 30 running in my stock room. It still runs rings
around the HP Evos running 98.

> * We have some software that *must* run on the latest XP desktops
>   because it is used on a small module of an unpopular course. Said
>   software was originally written in the early 1980's for a BBC micro,
>   then transferred to PCs using a BBC basic compiler around 1987 or so.
>   Said software is unbelievably simple ... it takes two or three numbers
>   and draws some kind of graph. Yet we're not allowed to touch it or
>   write a replacement (would probably take about 30 minutes) because
>   the lecturer insists on keeping things the same. If Windows ever stops
>   running 16-bit software, we'll be stuck at the previous version.

Too bad you can't write a replacement that looks the same so said lecturer
wouldn't know the difference. We get kind of the reverse.  If we want 
software on the machines, it has to be "approved" by central.  Why?  They
"gurus" never heard of it.  (Interactive Physics, Star Office, various graphing packages, the list goes on...)  The teachers (ahem) got past the so-called
security and loaded the software with no problem to the system.  Star Office
has saved many people's butt where Word couldn't hack it.  Star Office was a
package suggested by the librarian as a good, flexible package to use during
a workshop she gave on software and she said it was Ok to put on the system
when she was supposted to the "tech".

> > at least it's hard for me to lose my job. :-> 
> 
> Yes, but sometimes in weak moments you wonder whether it's worth it :)

Well, about 80% of those who go into teaching last less than three years.
These past few years every moment seems like a "weak moment".  Why do you 
think teachers rebel at the idea of year-round school?  We need 
the R&R! :) (Before anyone raises that 8:30-3:00 crap, I can prove I put
in the same amount or more time compared to a 9-5er with a two week 
vacation.)   I could retire next year but I think I'll hang around an be
a PITA.

Bob