[SunRescue] Cisco discussion Cont.

[Gregory Leblanc]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tim_hauber at STEV.net [mailto:tim_hauber at STEV.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 11:00 AM
> To: rescue at sunhelp.org
> Subject: [SunRescue] Cisco discussion Cont.
> 
> rescue at sunhelp.org writes:
> >While I generally agree with you, do you really think this 
> is the case
> >with
> >Cisco?  They aren't just competing with 3Com, Nortel, 
> Lucent, etc anymore,
> >but they're competing with CheckPoint and Firewall1. (hmm, are those
> >products or companies?).  I just did a vendor demo on the 
> PIX firewall
> >today, and it's kinda cool, and likely to replace our current
> >NT/Proxy-firewall.  But we also just purchased 2 3Com Super 
> Stack II 3300
> >switches, even though we knew that Cisco had similar 
> products.  The 3Com
> >buy
> >was also just brand loyalty by the other admin, but there 
> are too many
> >players in this field to stifle innovation.
> >	Greg
> >
> 
> I wasn't really talking about the current market, but looking 
> forward if
> Cisco's marketing and educational attempts are successful.  
> Right now I
> think the Tech people in most companies still pick network 
> hardware, but
> if Cisco manages to get the suits to think they are "IT" like 
> Microsoft
> has in many cases, then non tech management people say "buy 
> Cisco" whether
> it is better for the application or not, just like in many 
> cases they now
> say "buy NT and MS Office" .  I think the education push has as much
> effect as the rest of marketing, because if a hiring executive sees
> "Microsoft Certified Software Engineer" on more resumes than any other
> type of certification, it has to lead toward belief that Microsoft
> Certification is desirable, therefore Microsoft is good.  And I'm not
> lumping Cisco in with Microsoft as far as quality goes, just 
> as an example
> of my concerns.  It's a bass-ackwards way to get market 
> share, but when
> you are dealing with people who do not have the time nor 
> inclination to
> learn technology, and who have no same level technical 
> officer to consult
> (which seems to be the case at most small to medium 
> companies, why don't
> they create a VP of Tech psoition?) 

Easy.  Small to medium sized companies have WAY too much work to do for
their IS/IT department to sanction a VP.  The need for more people who can
handle all of the day-to-day work is greater than their need for an advocate
in upper management.  We killed off the attempt to get a tech VP here, and
got another person into our office, so that we have some chance of getting
closer to caught up on all the work we need to do.  We're fortunate in that
the VPs here actually trust us IS guys to make good decisions.  

> then they get their technology
> information from where ever they see it, including the next 
> door neighbor
> that just "loves his WebTV" and the Intel bunnies on TV.  If 
> Cisco manages
> to get a whole flock of  "Cisco Certified" kids coming out of 
> 2 and 4 year
> schools, and does some sexy TV ads, they are going to get to these
> midlevel execs.
> 
> And I'm not knocking being certified by anyone either, 
> because even if it
> is a regurgitation exam, the cert will definitely not hurt 
> your hirability
> or your $payability.  It is unfortunate that there is no way to let
> non-tech people know the difference between Certs that 
> require skills, and
> Certs that rquire memorization, but that is always the case 
> with any kind
> of diploma, etc.

That depends which end of the stick you're on.  I think it's a good thing to
HAVE certifications, I think it's a BAD thing to HIRE certifications.  I've
been burned by "certified" engineers a couple of times, they don't mean
anything to me anymore.
	Greg