A recent conversation:

So I'm having a great day in the support hell that I signed up for under the guise of "Systems Programmer". And I have come to a very important conclusion - caffeine does not cause me to blow my lid and become a seething mass of sarcasm and bitterness.

No, it's the job that's causing that.

Really, I expect better from our Gracious Academics, of whom we should be grateful to even have the privilege of working with. (Hmm. The HTML specification needs a "<sarcasm>" element.) I expect that any computing academic should have at least the problem solving abilities to determine that his computer gives an error when attempting to mount a floppy disk when there is no floppy disk in the drive.

Once we tackle those smaller issues, perhaps we could move onto the bigger ones - the ones where the system is obviously broken because they get undefined references when compiling, regardless of the fact that they're not linking to the required libraries, or even including the relevant header files (in some cases). Basic programming skills seem to be lost on these people. I do not understand it.

But it's my own fault. I naively accepted the job of Systems Programmer expecting the position to live upto it's name, somewhat. After months of struggle trying to perform all the helpdesk stuff in addition to some programming projects, and formulating strategies to better the IT situation within the department, it dawned on me that one of the reasons they had such large problems with the suggestions I was putting forward is because they see me, and my position, as nothing more than junior hell desk. This is further reinforced by the responsibility breakdown that we determined.

Talk about a slap to the face. On multiple counts.

Death may come only once, but it seems I get a tax return every year :)

So my tax return finally arrived in my bank account on Wednesday, which meant I could finally afford to order my Iaito for training. And because I also had a bit to spare, I picked up a bokken, a jo, and a shinai as well.

Of course, my Iaito isn't pictured in there, because I don't have it yet (should take about 7 weeks), and the saya (the black 'scabard') isn't mine (on loan until my Iaito arrives). I don't think I've been happier to spend $970 :)

The shinai there is actually fairly cheap, at only $55. The bokken goes for $65, and the jo is a whopping $100. When you think about it though, it makes sense - the bokken and jo are made of white oak. You'd think that the jo'd be cheaper than the bokken, being simply a pole instead of shaped to a sword, but it's the extra length that costs the big bucks, as I understand it.

The Iaito is by Nosyuiaido 1001. Nosyuiaido equates to Good Quality, but unfotunately it's at a price. The sword costs $750, which is more expensive than the cheaper swords that sensei can get (around $450). The reason I've got the Nosyuiaido is that they don't make the cheaper swords my length: I need a 2.5.5, and they stop making them at 2.4.5 (don't ask me how to interpret the numbers, because I don't know - it is 77.3 cm though). While it did mean that I had to wait longer to have enough cash to get my sword, I do get a better quality sword that will last me longer, so overall it probably works in my favour.

The choices for the 1001 are fairly limited. I picked the black cotton tsuka ito (the wrapping on the ska, the 'handle' - the silk wrapping isn't available for the 1001's), with a black stone finish saya ('scabbard'). The sageo is also black (that's the dangly cord thingy that you can see in the photo above. The proper ones are actually almost a third longer). I did like the look of another guy's brown Iaito, but I thought that I'd just get black for my first Iaito.

It's a lot of money, but still, it means that I finally have my own equipment to train with instead of borrowing the (diminishing supply of) club equipment. Hooray!

Now I just gotta wait for my Iaito to arrive.

Been a while, hasn't it? But then again, who really reads this and cares enough? *grin*

I've got the Daily Blues again. The New Shiny Job smell has worn off, and I'm starting to see things for what they really are. Or rather, I'm starting to see them in a way that isn't favourable for those being seen. Earlier posts about the people and the environment still hold, which helps to paint a bleaker picture, but it's probably not really *that* bad.

One night two weeks ago, when the others had gone, I was asked (out of the blue) by one of my co-workers what I thought needed to be done to improve things. I sat down for a bit, and had bit of a think, and then started abstracting. I outlined two key areas which could be applied to all our services, and then broke them down into smaller topics to help emphasise the importance, and try and show various areas how you can think about those areas. I then tried to apply those areas to each of the computing services we offer (limiting it to just one aspect of the job, but the areas could have easily applied to any aspect).

After a few hours we'd come up with a fairly extensive list of things that could be done to improve things significantly. These included simple things like "Fix blah so it doesn't break all the time" right through to "Lets change the architecture for this so that we can merge this thing with the university method and realise their goals, which are really our goals too". Along the way I discussed what I though was holding the team back from making these changes, and what sort of outlook and attitude changes needed to happen to make these changes happen.

This was all Good, and the Way was bright, and we had a Plan. Unfortunately, the first step was to get the others in on the act. So we decided to have another impromptu discussion first thing the next morning. For various reasons, this discussion didn't go down well.

I think right off the bat they had the wrong impression - that we had gone behind their back and discussed all this without consulting them. They failed to understand that this was all impromptu and we were trying to open the discussion up to include them. Based on that, they retreated into a defensive posture, as I think they might have thought that we were attacking them and their work. Whatever the reason, they were only willing to provide de-constructive criticism, rather than anything positive. A couple of the retaliation strategies really got my goat up. Things like "What we've got now is better than what we had before" when it's still broken; illogical, circular, and contradictory arguments; and what I can only put down to them wilfully misunderstanding of suggestions and ideas. But by far the most insulting of them was the implication that I wanted to make the place look like iiNet, that I wanted to take what iiNet had and implement it here. Aside from the fact that this is totally bullshit, it demonstrates a larger, underlying problem within the group: that they are unwilling to take any sort of lead from anyone else, whether it be me, other people in the uni, or the sorts of things that people in industry do.

Shortly after this discussion broke down, I scratched out my thoughts. Although the tone is a bit harsh, and the wording is off, I think this is a fairly accurate account of what I think the underlying problems within the team are:

From personal experience, and from the views of other people both within and from outside the department, it appears that the general consensus about the technical staff and operations from the School of Computing is that it's a big joke. The tech staff appear stubborn, and hold the belief that their technical solution is superior to what the division or IS could provide, when in actual fact it is behind the game, both technology wise and administratively wise.

When I started this position I had high hopes as I had heard, admitedly from the people within the team itself, that the IT situation in the department had improved significantly since I had last been involved with the department. In reality, only minor changes had occurred to some of the infrastructure, other parts of the infrastructure were seriously lacking, and the general standard of service and availability had, if anything, decreased.

It appears that the tech staff have an arrogant "King of the hill" mentality. Everything they have done is "better than it was before, therefore it's good enough". Their solution is not only good enough, but better than anything that could be offered by anyone external (IS, the division, new staff, etc). Although they maintain the delusion of "moving forward", all they are interested in is maintaining the status quo.

This is largely due to a number of issues. Primarily, the tech staff do not have any experience, particularly in IT, outside working within the department. They finished their degree and moved straight into a role within the department. They learnt from the people who had also done the same, and leart all their bad habits in addition to forming new bad habits. Because of this, they do not understand the function or purpose of the job, or it's responsibilities. They don't understand what data they're managing, how it relates to other data. They don't have the experience to develop or remodel their existing infrastructure effectively, or even the ability to understand why they might need to.

These problems have prompted me to try to resolve some, if not all of them. I have outlined a number of areas that the team is failing, and suggested ways on improving them. Unfortunately, I have constantly run into a number of problems that prevent any progress. The "King of the hill" mentality, etc, as described above, is due to the closed minded nature of the staff. Any suggestions of improving anything, with supporting arguments and experience to back them up, are met with negativity, non-constructive criticism, recursive and/or contradictory arguments, and outright denial that there exist any problems. This is the result from any attempt over the last 4 or 5 months from various different approaches to resolving the problem. This closed minded and negative approach to system administration prevents the IT infrastructure within the department from maturing, and falling into line with the IT direction and goals of the rest of the university.

This "Install and go" approach to system administration, with no future vision, innovation, or direction behind it, is best suited for helpdesk staff, or at least a system administration team dedicated to maintaining the status quo. Unless the outlook and perception of the staff change, the IT systems within the department will never mature to meet today's general IT standards. In all honesty, it's an operation that I am embarrassed to be associated with, yet they seem to be happy, if not proud of the "achievements" that they've made so far.

Nasty, no? [Edit (2004/10/11 23:51): It should be noted that this does not represent all the staff within the team - one other member is quite open minded and willing to address issues. Unfortunately, this isn't enough to enable change with the others.]

The next day we had another stab at it. I outlined a number of areas about why I thought that the previous attempt went downhill (including some of the above), and it seemed that it went a lot better than before. Unfortunately, all that they were willing to discus were fixing some of the issues that were currently an issue (ignoring that most of which were actually addressed the day before). About all that came out of the discussion was a list of what areas various people are responsible for. Not really what I was expecting.

But one important thing that came out of that list, at least for me, was the realisation that although I was hired as a Systems Programmer, my position was really just a glorified helpdesk. At the back of my mind I had known this, but this really shoved it into the forefront of my attention. I was (and am) not happy.

So I'm looking around for a new job, hopefully one that suits me and my goals. When I leave I'm planning on making some recommendations to various people, with a basis that echo's the above fairly closely. It should be "interesting", to say the least, but I'm not holding my breath.

So what is it that causes me to seem to have so many issues when it comes to work? The only conclusion that I can come up with is that it's because I care about fixing the problems too much, yet don't have the voice or ability to affect things. Hah.