Online Job Boards suck

What the "experts" tell you is true.  Online job boards are a waste of time.  In fact I've NEVER gotten a job using an online job board.  I either knew someone, went directly to the company site or found out about the job some other way.

The video below shows just how useless sites like Monster.com and ZipRecruiter can be especially if you rely on them to give you updated job postings.

Watch and learn.

Take control of those nightmare technical interviews

I had a recent experience that was a perfect example of what it's like to go through a bad technical interview.

I say "bad" because the whole time I was there it was less about what I knew and more about trying to make me look like an idiot.

Yeah, I know there's such a thing as the hot seat and technical interviews are designed to be tough.  But we strayed from the technical into the psychological for no good reason other than one of the guys across the table from me just wasn't going to ever be a fan.  It became a game of minefields.

Thing is, I wasn't playing which just made the inquisitor across the table make more of an ass out of himself the longer it went on.

I've often said that the interview process is adversarial.  The premise being that you're either lying, unqualified or unworthy of being in the same room with a "guru."

In the video below I give you some pointers on how to get the best outcome you can without sacrificing your dignity in the process.

If you can, make a positive out of a negative.

The Truth about IT

I'm going to let you in on a secret...

If you're in IT nothing you do really matters.  At least not in the sense  of doing anything the world cares about.  I've said it before, IT exists to service people who actually create something.  It's a classic service industry job no matter what your title and that puts you right up there with the plumbers and auto mechanics. 

Plumbers don't get their names on monuments.  Neither do cab drivers, doormen or IT pros.  The world becomes more inconvenient without them but in the end they only exist to make someone else's life easier. 

I suppose that's why there's so many certifications for the profession now, assuming you could call it a profession.  It's not good enough to just be competent, now we need a governing authority to validate us.  A governing authority that's built a multi-billion dollar business out of our own insecurities.  As though we needed another reason to doubt our own abilities.

Even worse, validation from these governing authorities is suspect.  They exist less for the advancement of knowledge than their own revenue.  Why for instance would I need to not only carry a certification for Network knowledge but also specific product knowledge?

If I've been building networks for 20 years who cares if I have a Network + , A+ or ITIL anyway?  Those are supposed to be vendor neutral.  Surprise! network + was primarily developed by Cisco and A+ was written by hardware manufactures like HP, Dell and IBM.

 ITIL was written by masochists.

I've actually been disqualified for entry level tech jobs with (at the time) a decade of experience because I didn't have the right certification.  Never mind that on top of the experience  I had an electronics engineering degree, actually know what to do with a logic probe and was trained to troubleshoot PC's at board level. 

Because I refuse to spend $110 on an exam to see if I know which pin of a Molex connector is ground I can be denied a job I could do in my sleep because somebody thinks managing IT is all about the right certification.   If I've been working with networking  and computer equipment for most of my career why is it important what brand names were on the faceplates?

I know why and so do you, the people you're talking to don't have a clue about the department they're managing or worse don't really care. 

What's really sad is that your choice to work in the field means you have an 8 in 10 chance for having to work for them.

Here's a newsflash for the uninitiated, In the IT space everybody has to play by the same rules or nothing works. 

Do you really believe that the whole world runs exclusively on Cisco, Juniper, HP or 3Com equipment? 

Then it might surprise you to know that two brand agnostic organizations (IEEE, IETF) make the  Internet and networking in general possible.  They could care less whose brand is on your router so long as it plays by the rules they make. 

It's a perfect example of how useless vendor certifications are and an equally perfect indicator of a broken IT organization should it subscribe to another useless certification, the ITIL.

If you see a job description that demands a specific brand certification or worse the dreaded "familiar with ITIL methodology" you're likely dealing with a hiring manager that doesn't understand their own department.  A hallmark of an ITIL organization shows itself when ability is defined only by plug and play solutions no matter how ineffective.  They're not looking for ability, they're looking for the status quo even if it's dysfunctional.

I'm not against education or training, I'm just against the commoditization of it.  I'm also against lazy management practices based on buzzwords and fads.  Effective IT managers know at least something about the nuts and bolts of their department and can lead from experience.   

Ineffective IT managers are just waiting around till the next seminar on their way to their next job.  They rule by edicts lifted straight out of the framework of the dogma they've embraced and then slam the door on your way out. 

Good managers lead from experience not seminars.  You have to know what's right to know when things have really gone wrong.  You also have to give a damn or you're useless. 

That can be a tall order considering how neutered the IT function has become in the last decade.  IT budgets are strictly administered (usually by someone other than IT) and organizations don't have the latitude they once did.

If you're unlucky enough to be working in an organization that's fully embraced the ITIL construct you can expect to be constantly swimming upstream.  ITIL demands that technology and technical concerns take a back seat to the every whim of the user base.  

Yes, IT is a service profession but constant pandering leads to sloppy IT organizations and eventually to another tenet of ITIL, workarounds.  In other words, band-aids and bailing wire take precedence over actually fixing the problem.

Everyone demands zero downtime but refuses to do what it takes to achieve it.  IT professionals are expected to be on-call 24/7 for a wage that doesn't compensate them for that commitment.   Lest we forget the hardware to make it happen.

You're a fool if you accept that but most fools in IT do. 

If you care about what you do you then you don't mind the crazy hours but I can count on one hand the number of people I've met who were doing more than going through the motions.  Here's another newsflash, they weren't working 9 to 5.

We've come full circle.  The cold hard reality is that IT is a service profession and doesn't lend itself to rigid schedules and the meaningless busywork. 

So what can you look forward to if you happen to land that "dream?" IT job.  Maybe you're the new System Admin or IT manager.  Good for you.  Now that the pleasantries are over it's time to figure out if you'll be around long enough to wear out your office chair.

Let's play a little point/counterpoint framed in the context of questions asked in the average IT interview...

Why do you want to work in IT?

Point	Counterpoint
I love technology and I want to help people make the best use of it.	Technology makes the world go round and it's better than flipping burgers for a living.  But not by much.

Where do you see yourself in 5 years?

Point

Counterpoint

Hopefully in a management position so I can help further business goals using IT.

Probably in management because the last 2 IT managers quit and I managed to not get fired.  However, I know I'll be burned out because nobody is willing to do what it takes so I'll just bide my time.  I'll probably attend a lot of seminars looking for a way to make my life easier and do the bare minimum.  I'll hire lots of people with letters behind their names to make the department look good till I move on to my next job.

What is IT's function?

Point	Counterpoint
To further the organization's goals with the services I provide.	To keep the executive suite from complaining too much and maintaining the status quo because nobody really gives a damn what I do so long as they get their email and can play Farmville on their IPAD.

What's the value of IT certification?

Point	Counterpoint
It shows a commitment to continuous improvement and allows me to keep up to date with the latest technology.	Nobody cares about my MBA so I better have some more letters behind my name if I want to keep my job.

What's more important, Technology or customer service?

Point	Counterpoint
IT is a service industry, our users, customers or whatever the label, come first.  They need to feel confident in the resources we provide	IT IS a service industry and you shouldn't be in it unless you understand that.  However, if you don't have the resources to do your job properly and decisions are made based on price instead of value (there's a difference) then you're never going to achieve customer satisfaction.  That is unless they're satisfied with you constantly saying "I'm sorry"

Ok, so the counterpoint looks like someone you wouldn't want within 100 miles of an IT department.  Here's the rub, the Point column is largely BS and everyone in the field knows it.  It looks good on glossy brochures but you can't get blood from a stone. 

Most IT departments are lucky to get new patch cables let alone the resources they need to meet user  demands.  The "Counterpoint" side is sadly closer to reality than anyone wants to admit to.  It's why I personally prefer contract work because I'd rather not waste time spinning my wheels and going nowhere while the rest of the department struggles for legitimacy that the field just can't provide.

IT can be rewarding but not when it's treated like the accounting department.  Truth be told if technology was forced to evolve in an average IT department, we'd still be using Motorola Dynatacs and dialing up to AOL for email on 28.8K modems.

The problem with corporate IT management methodologies is that you have a lot of people sitting around just waiting for something to happen.  When you are busy it's generally because one of the band-aids fell off the server and the CEO is screaming about how he can't get to EBay because of it.

Lets' face it, we're the plumbers, electricians and architects of technology.  We know what to do and how to do it (Hopefully?)  The best measure of success is that things work when they need to and that's the only goal that matters.

 We do what we do because we care about our life's work. (Well, at least first before we get jaded.)  Thing is,  that much ambition doesn't get you too far in most corporate IT departments.  Too much passion scares corporate types which means you either get shown the door or you just trudge on and abandon your soul.

Where a real tradesman is looked upon as the authority in their profession, IT is frequently seen as a necessary evil.  It's hard if not impossible to meet the demands of an organization when your hands are tied by corporate dogma. 

It's not that I'd advocate IT having no oversight but when you have to pass every decision through the  corporate litmus test, the result is going to be mediocre at best. 

Thus we have the "standard of mediocrity" ultimately resulting in IT pros clutching at straws to appear relevant.  That feeds my earlier assertion of how IT certifications prey on your own insecurities.  If you really care about the field and really want to effect change then you have to be brave enough to not just suffer in silence or load your resume up with worthless certifications.

The best known figures in technology didn't hide behind their cubicles hoping for someday.  Bill Gates of Microsoft and Steve Jobs  of Apple would have never survived in the average IT department.  Hell, they couldn't even stand college where at least there was beer and girls!

So why do we expect people who thrive on technology to function like accountants?  Would it be reasonable to expect an auto mechanic to fix your car in your bathroom? 

Well, I'm sorry to tell you, that's the reality of IT more often than not.  Unless you can make a go of it with the feast or famine cycle of consulting (as in independent not Robert Half) you're stuck with it. 

Of course, If you're more into the management track or the cubicle lifestyle I suppose it can work for you but I can guarantee I won't at least not as your employee.

Extra! Companies desperate to fill open IT job openings...or are they?

Saw this in one of my daily job agents...  

In case you can't read it, it says, "Sorry, there were no jobs posted in the past day that matched your criteria"

Here I thought employers were just begging for candiates to fill their open positions.  It's the reason they want to raise H1-B caps.  

Or could it be something more like this excerpt from crooksandliars...


"The so called "shortage" is a self made shortage by the companies who want to hire the knowledge at cut rate prices. Individuals in their 40s and 50s find themselves increasingly locked out of jobs they can easily do because the company doesn't want to pay them for that experience. 

Even when individuals are desperate for that job, and are willing to take any pay just so they can work, it's a rare occurrence indeed to be even granted an interview. And the longer one is unemployed, the worse it gets as now the company will claim that you've been out of the field too long and aren't current on today's technology.

So the next time you see some CEO crying about how it's so damned difficult to fill their spots, stop and think about what they're really saying. What they really mean is they're unable to find some kid who can do the job for peanuts and don't want to hire anyone out of the existing glut of unemployed tech experts who would kill for just an interview."


From the Global Affairs Blog 
and  reprinted by crooksandliars.com

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Are Macs invading the enterprise?

"Better watch out, better not cry Macs are gonna make your IT guy sigh..."

Set to "Santa Claus is coming to town"

Usually I ignore the daily LinkedIn updates in my inbox informing me of the goings on of people who may know people that were once in the same state as a guy I sat next to in Burger King 1o years ago.  Wow, that whole 6 degrees of separation thing must be true...

So one of those strangers in my inbox was recommending a link to a story on Business Insider talking about the increase of Macs in the workplace.  The cliff notes version goes something like; Rich professional people are really creative and like Macs more than PC's and because of it they want to use them at work. 

I've actually seen evidence of this in action at my last employer.  The entire organization was run on PC platforms but there were a few Macs floating around as well as some Mac "servers" Which were glorified 1U server chassis' running Snow Leopard.  AKA, not a server.

True to the assertion of the article, our Mac users were in the executive suites and generally didn't want to do more than get their email and browse the web.  Anything else required running terminal server sessions a la' Parallels just to edit a word document. 

I remember on my first day I got called to the office of the regional manager whose only complaint was that the terminal server session and desktop wasn't like his Mac desktop.  Great first impression I made that day.

By the time I came along the Mac users already accepted the fact that we could never be a pure Mac shop mostly because everyone else had to do lots of boring uncreative stuff that didn't work on Macs.

I've written other articles about Macs in business environment so I won't belabor the point here.   Suffice it to say that as long as Apple treats all their products  as consumer devices (even if it says "pro" on it) with no regard for business  process, there will always be resistance by IT departments.  In this case, resistance is not futile because the bottom line is that Macs don't play well with most enterprise networks and applications.

This isn't meant to be derisive it's a simple statement of fact.  Remember that the sandbox that is Apple rejects conformity.  99% of enterprise networks are running non-Apple hardware and operating systems.  They conform to the evil IBM model because they have to, there isn't a good alternative.  Linux is still somewhere around the level of Windows 98 for the desktop and Macs have to use Microsoft office because they still don't have a good productivity suite. 

If you live in a sandbox, sometimes you gotta order out...

I'm sure the Mac enthusiast is thinking, "Well, the enterprise needs to change then"  Yes, maybe it does but right now it hasn't and honestly it can't.  As long as the bulk of corporate America doesn't produce anything more creative than a suggestive photo at the Christmas party nothing will change.

Until corporate America finally decides to drop its 19th century labor model and realize that people don't have to be under your nose to be productive, nothing can change.  Journalists, consultants and others not dependent on a corporate cubicle have figured out how to excel without the chains of corporate IT conformity.

That works out fine for them but if you go to work in a cubicle decorated with pictures of places you'd rather be don't expect the revolution any time soon. 

Mac's by their very design are non-conformist.  From the ambivalence of the file system organization to its lack of support for common enterprise applications Macs are meant to accommodate the user not vice versa.  That's the way Steve Jobs wanted it so don't expect it to change.

With the advent of cloud services, Google docs and online meeting options , it's possible that someday we may not have to waste years of our lives in pointless commutes to some dreary office building.  This is where Macs can become a viable option.  To make a Mac work for business you have to get it out of the office and give it an Icloud account. 

Apple is all about creativity and connectivity.  Everything from the sandbox is meant to work with everything else with an Apple logo.  Online experiences are supposed to be ABOUT the content not the process of getting TO the content. 

Enterprise IT doesn't work that way.  Enterprise IT has to control all the channels if for no other reason than to protect its information assets.  It's not about WANTING to control everything it's about HAVING to.  IT departments don't have a choice in the matter.  If given the choice without repercussion most IT guys would let the free for all happen if for no other reason than to be hated a little less. 

But we all know the corporate network would be in flames in 20 minutes.  It's human nature to be freeform which flies in the face of any IT organization trying to secure and provide reliable resources. 

So it is, so shall it be.

Macs are to Enterprise as Smartphone  is to Blackberry. 

Similar function, different methodology. 

There's nothing wrong with using a Mac if it fits your style of work but it's very design is guided by the premise to NOT be like a PC.  That's why they never seem to fit well into enterprise IT architectures. 

I'm not anti-Apple, I just know it doesn't work well in the prevailing IT construct. 

If the world decides to throw away the construct and do it Apples way, however, then it's conceivable that Apple could become a catalyst for finally abandoning an outdated work methodology that says work only happens in an office.

Article first published as Are Macs Invading the Enterprise? on Technorati.

Why malware works

I've just returned from a late night session at one of my clients. 

It all started with an email from a user at the site informing me that another user was having issues with their PC running slowly and not allowing their email client to function.

Most of my client sites are small offices with less than 10 users so reporting issues to me is an informal process.  So while I got the report about the other user I also had a few requests from the user that sent the email.

Turns out the other user's problems were related to a rather nasty piece of malware (TDS4 rootkit) that did all those nasty things that rootkits tend to do. 

It was polymorphic so it evaded the virus scanner...
It denied access to task manager and loaded the CPU to 100% with constant attempts
to download more malware...
And finally it tried to open random nefarious web pages.

I've been dealing with this kind of issue a lot lately but usually it's the XP 2012 Fake AV that fools users into installing the malware then digs itself in, destroys the user profile and in some cases downloads more malware allowing the infected pc to become part of a torrent serving botnet.

I had just cleaned up both the reporting user and the other user's pc 3 weeks before.  They knew what happened and why.  They were given admonition against trusting anything they didn't already use on a regular basis and shown what it was that caused the problem I had to fix.

So I got the obligatory nodding of the head and promise that they'd be more vigilant because after all security is everyone's responsibility right?

Well, I guess I should just accept that it's just my responsibility.  You think I'd learn after almost 20 years...

The sad fact is that users can care less about the damage a malicious trojan or entrenched rootkit can do to their PC.  After all, that's what you're there for and they expect you'll fix it before they're back from lunch.  The next killer app that promises endless coupons or installs a cute dancing cow on their desktop will quickly nullify every attempt to counter such social engineering.  It's not unlike a speeding driver who when caught blames the car for his actions because it goes too fast.

Not the best analogy, I know...

So the battle for social engineering is lost.  It must be because we've been droning on about responsible use of computers for decades now and our advice is still largely ignored or at least quickly forgotten. 

So now we have to take preemptive action.  That usually involves the installation of a layered protection system consisting of not just Anti-Virus but also anti-malware software to save the user from themselves. 

At my client sites I currently use Sophos for Anti-Virus and Malwarebytes for malware protection. I find it a good combination of security software that keep a small footprint and don't fight with each other when doing their jobs.  This part is important.  Avoid bloated packages that get in the way of workflow and perform only marginally.

I'm not afraid to say openly that I find Most Symantec and McAfee products to be absolutely useless when it comes to malware and rootkits.  Worse, if the consumer versions end up in a business setting. They become almost completely ineffective and are sure to cause user complaints as these lumbering giants steal system resources and get in the way of every mouse click needlessly. 

The KISS principle is very relevant here.  Stick with products that do the one thing they do well and don't try to be anything else.  I used to recommend AVAST! until it contracted the Symantec bloat disease and became an ineffective security solution. 

If you find yourself at an infected user's PC searching the Internet for another software package to do what you thought you had already paid for it's a good indicator that it's time for a change.  Sounds obvious but it's surprising how much an IT department will put up with just because they have a history with one vendor.

In some cases a user will figure out how to shut off the security software if they feel it's too intrusive.  Try to avoid that scenario if possible.  Unfortunately if your clients are still using Windows XP and have legacy software then you'll have a hard time keeping them out of the settings since there are still far too many applications that require administrator privileges.  Since an Administrator account trumps all else, any pc with user running as local administrators is at risk.  Expect some type of security issue at some point in this case.

In spite of all your efforts to deploy the perfect security suite, you're bound to get complaints from users that they can't get their favorite site to work anymore. What they don't tell you is that it's the same site that almost destroyed their PC on their last visit. They'll scowl and complain regardless of the evidence or they'll claim the security software interferes with their work. 

Unless their work is collecting coupons or evaluating dancing cow version 2.3.2 I can honestly care less.  I'm not draconian, I just don't want to bankrupt my client fixing the same problem over and over again.  It's boring and hurts your credibility in the long run.

This is where communication comes in.  You have to let your clients (the ones who sign your check) know what's going on and why you're doing it.  Explain to them the implications to their business and stress the costs involved including: lost productivity, lost data and of course the cost of having you waste more time fixing the same problem.

The only way to fight entrenched bad habits is irrefutable evidence that it's costing your client/business money.  Nobody in their right mind is going to argue your logic especially if they sign your checks

Maintenance Windows

Subtle admonitions, Strict adherence to SLA's or boldface demands...

Ever try to convince an entire enterprise that you need to take down their servers for a weekend?  There's always resistance and even if you get your time window somebody's going to complain that they can't get to their stuff. 

Maybe somebody higher up in the organization will make you postpone your maintenance window just because they can.  "No, we can't send our satellite office of 3 people home an hour early.  It will impact our performance!"

Ah, office politics.  The great monkey wrench...

It's understandable in this day and age of 24/7 everything that users expect zero downtime.  That's reasonable given ideal circumstances. My experience has yet to show me an enterprise where that ideal exists.

In fact, it's impossible unless the enterprise is based on IT.  Think online universities or Large software companies.  Unless IT is at the core of the business it's not a priority.

Strangely enough, IT is at the core of most businesses whether the business knows it or not.  Your users just take it for granted.  "It worked yesterday so it'll work tomorrow so there's no need to inconvenience me."

There's a few approaches to deal with this.

You can just ignore the necessary maintenance and wait for something to blow up.
Then you get all the time you need to take care of things.  The downside is you're probably going to lose a weekend, the department will be blamed for being incompetent and somebody's going to get shown the exit.

You can force extensions to maintenance window by ignoring the predetermined time limits but you won't make too many friends and that exit door is likely to be in your future.

You can make the argument that 24/7 availability is unrealistic without putting resources in place to make it possible.  That's reasonable but will likely fall on deaf ears.

Seems like a no-win scenario. 

Unless you can get support from someone other than your IT director it is.

Unreasonable maintenance windows and a lack of proper resources is a systematic problem outside of your ability as an IT professional to fix. 

The fact is, if you're in an organization that won't allocate resources to meet demands then you need to get out.  It's really that simple so don't overthink it.

Discovery Channel's Mythbusters may have been able to successfully polish cow patties but in the end they were still cow patties.  Take a lesson from that...

The 2 faces of an IT pro.

So after my first post you've probably concluded I'm an arrogant SOB with an attitude problem.

Well, I'll fight you tooth and nail about the arrogant part but the attitude problem I'll fully embrace. :)

Over my career thus far I've seen two primary types of IT people; I like to call them the Fundamentalists and the Frauds.

Wow, that sounds like some kind of profound observation there!  Actually, I'm just pleased that I found another word that starts with "F" to go along with "Fraud".

Now I'm not saying that there's a bunch of IT people who sacrifice Xbox consoles to some giant, flame encircled Proliant server somewhere.  Nor do I suggest the other group is running bot nets and stealing PIN codes from your local ATM.

No, what I'm getting at has more to do with an IT person's motivation for doing the job.

Fundamentalists (from my point of view) are those whose motivation stems from a deeply rooted desire to leverage technology for the benefit of their organization.  There's no room for BS in this definition and the status quo is nothing more than a starting point.  Force a fundamentalist into a badly managed IT organization and you'll soon have a full scale revolt (of 1) on your hands.

We'd all like to believe we fit that definition wouldn't we...

Maybe, maybe not.  A devout fundamentalist strives for the ideal to exclusion of all else.  That can be a problem.  I've met brilliant IT people who couldn't hold up their end of a conversation to the point of almost social retardation.  Unless you're writing code for Face book your career opportunities will be few and far between. 

Now, the Frauds (again from my point of view).  Frauds aren't necessarily bad IT people.  They're not the laziest or least dedicated.  In fact the very thing that makes them frauds is the elaborate construct they painstakingly maintain just to appear valuable to their organization.  At some point the Fraud settles for the status quo and tries not to be the squeaky wheel.  Only high profile projects that support their construct are given priority and all available resources are marshaled to support it.   Frauds aren't born, they're made and we've all been one or will be at some point in our career.  Here's why...

At some point many IT people tire of running headlong into the brick wall that is senior IT management that many enterprises employ.  Instead of constant frustration they learn to game the system by only involving themselves in projects where their supposed herculean efforts can be easily seen. 

If there isn't a high profile project available they'll often create one.  They'll work innumerable hours, sacrifice personal life and family just to maintain the construct.  Unfortunately, all this time and effort maintaining their image leaves little time for dealing with...wait for it...Yes! the fundamentals of their job.  Maintenance of the infrastructure and upgrading of skills fall by the wayside with more work being assigned to lower level IT people and heavier reliance on outside consultants to perform tasks that should be basic to their job.  "Ah, but if senior management sees my great deeds and supposed dedication I'll be just fine!"  Yes, for awhile you will...

I've run into both types in varying degrees.  Maybe it's the former clerk who happened to be the techie person in the office and is suddenly the network administrator.  Being an expert in Excel and clearing paper jams in the printer is a poor foundation for dealing with network issues.  Still it was probably a bump in pay and how hard could this computer stuff be anyway.

It could be the grizzled veteran who just got sick of hearing the word "No".  So he/she gets the lay of the land and figures out what it takes to make the executive suites happy with the minimal amount of effort. 

The key difference here is the divergence of motivations.  The fundamentalist motivation is rooted in accomplishment with or without the laurels.  The Fraud is more concerned with self preservation.

Stay in a badly managed organization long enough, however, and even a fundamentalist can become a fraud.  The lesson here: Get out when you don't care anymore.

There is no black and white steadfast rule.  Life is about shades or grey.  We're IT and we have to deal with people so a degree of self-preservation is of course a good thing from a financial point of view at least.  Still the motivation has to be (or should be) more fundamentalist than Fraud.  Let's give it a ratio of 80/20 nodding toward the fundamentalist. 

Anything less and your just wasting time and making yourself miserable.  How much fun can it be to constantly be watching your back anyway?