Holidays

Nothing says "You've been missed" when after 2 days off, you've 1500 emails, 3 'really critical things' and a 2 day backlog of work.

Including one absolutely fookin' critical restore, an urgent demand for additional disk space on a veritas cluster, and a pointy haired manager demanding I rename servers to 'conform'.

I'm considering my opinion on that latter. Ya see, the naming convention is basically just a bag of spooge. Basically, all our servers end up as S?RUGnnnn where the question mark is to signify the 'role' of the server. Unfortunately, the 'spec' was written by an arsehat who gave a load of letters, the only one of which is typically relevant is 'A' for 'Application'. So we have an awful lot of SARUGnnnnn servers, which is starting to get chronically meaningless. Increasingly of late, there's been queries of "can you check so-and-so on SARUGnnnn' which gets the response 'which one's that then?'.

(To which I typically interject 'I told you so').

Now I'm being told that "When we have the single console it will be important to be seen to conform.", which frankly is just bollocks. Yes, I fully agree that there are situations where you want similar names. When you've a cluster of 500 nearly identical servers for example. But we're rapidly reaching the point where we have 'generic server number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,' and so we have to go look it up in our database in order to have any idea of what it is/does/who's it is etc.

When one is doing systems admin, getting your servers mixed up is really not a good thing.

Fallujah

I was going to write a rant about compensation culture. Or another witty and insightful piece about how you'd change the world.

That kinda went out the window. I was in the gym this evening, and one word made me change my mind. "Fallujah". Right now 'precision' munitions (yeah right, as if 2000 pounds of high explosive is ever going to be precise) are demolishing this city.

Sadly, following the election results it was inevitable. The old truth is this. You do not win a war by subjugating the opponent. You win a war by making them your friends.
A war has been declared on terrorism. But you can just bet that if another country invaded this one, there'd be people resisting the oppressors with everything they had, even if it were bricks and catapults.

It didn't work in Vietnam. It hasn't worked in Israel. It didn't work in Afghanistan. It won't work in Iraq.

A just war it may have begun. Deposing a dictator, safeguarding national oil interests. Valid reasons for a war some may say. But Iraq is in anarchy. And will be so for many years yet. Every thud of a 2000 pound precision munition brings this country that little bit closer to the stone age.

The people of iraq may make the comparison, between life under Saddam, and the last several months without power, sewage disposal, water. Where the invaders shoot to kill, because they fear the freedom fighters.

The war in Iraq won't be over for many years. It'll take that long to pick up the pieces. And for every man, woman or child killed in a 'precision strike', you create another embittered person, who is prepared to take up arms for vengance. Terrorism or freedom fighters are the hydra. For every head you cut, another two spring up. The solution is to stop cutting off heads, and start making friends.

Just another Pyrrhic victory.

How would you change the world?

I subject I was discussing with zaitan. How would you change the 'system'. The established order.

What would be your idea of utopia?. And how would you implement it.

Imagine, that in some shock occurance, you are made Emperor of the world. All defer to your will, and all will accept your wishes as law.

What do you change?

You see, the thought occurs that in this country we have a parliment. If you are elected, you get a paycheck. If you are not though, you don't.

This basically means that you've got to be financially secure in some way to run for government, which nicely cuts out a large segment of the population.
Would you change that demographic, and how?

Do you see the ideal society as more communist or capitalist than it is? Remembering for every fair system you implement, there will be those who do not play fair, and who abuse it.

We discussed, you see, the idea of 'career' politicians. Paid to compete and run for government. It's be great. A new age where everyone can try and do the job, and bring fresh ideas. But we couldn't think how to do it. If you offer a grant to anyone who stands in an election, then you will get people standing just to get the grant.

One way or another, despite their idiosyncrascies, the 'established' political systems have lasted quite well. Is this due to an ongoing cycle of corruption, or is it simply that it really is the 'least worst' system?

It's the usual problem, of power corrupting. It'd start simply. You'd get some support standing for election. And then you'd owe 'em a favour. So maybe you'd see some good stuff go their way. Look out for you and your own, and then the others.

Problem is, I can't see a way out. Giving all the power and decision making authority to one man would be ideal, but only if that one man is one you can trust to do the right thing for all. So instead you split the crown amongst many, they fight over the issues, and gradually pull in different directions.

So just imagine, that tomorrow you were made president, prime minister, king, queen or otherwise major authority figure.

What would _you_ do with it?