Exclusively for TechExams members for Infosec Boot Camps starting before April 30, 2026
scaredoftests wrote: » Yes, I have had both worlds and I tell you, I would rather work with tech savvy people instead of people who don't have a clue. Less banging the head against the wall, so to speak.
$bvb379 wrote: » Agreed, worked for a privately owned company, full of non-IT people. No one knew what SQL was, Macros, or how to use Excel efficiently for that matter. They were using the same exact queries in Access that the last CEO created in 2003 when they were a $5 million company, when I worked there they were a $32 million company with the same exact processes, no changed whatsoever. Still using paper invoices....paper everything. I couldn't make a suggestion without being questioned about it 3 or 4 times.....from non-technical people. I will never work in that sort of environment again. Way too frustrating.
josh.armentrout1 wrote: » Sure those folk might be non-technical, but I find those that are non-technical and from the country to be more "real". In the end they may be better to work with if you can relate to their personal lives. Relate that stuff to the technical and they might be more receptive. I especially like it now that I have places to go shooting now.
bermovick wrote: » He said that (like was said above), non-IT shops see their IT department as an expense, whereas they (and other IT shops) have IT as their pretty much main source of revenue.
Winzer wrote: » Pretty much this. Being seen as a not-so-necessary expense can be frustrating. They also don't understand that every IT workers aren't interchangeable . "Why do we need a 80k/year sysadmin, can't the 45k helpdesk guy do it?"
bermovick wrote: » I interviewed for a cisco partner a while back and I was told during the interview something I'd never really thought about before. He said that (like was said above), non-IT shops see their IT department as an expense, whereas they (and other IT shops) have IT as their pretty much main source of revenue. They said they expect their people to have or get their CCIEs, and even to specialize in a second area, since that's what they do/sell. I really would have liked working there with that attitude, but we ended up moving to a different area.
kohr-ah wrote: » It depends on where you go and what you do. IT company wise I have worked for MSPs but not for a vendor itself and I would say this side of it you are appreciated to a point but it also is soul draining. Not all MSPs are bad but the growth potential is extremely limited unless you leave for another MSP/provider. I been told working for the IT side like VMWare, ATT, Splunk, Fortinet, Cisco, whomever, you get more appreciation and working for the IT company is much better than a overall MSP. Most people I've been told enjoy working for these type companies. For Non-IT companies it really depends. The appreciation is different. I have had managers who appreciate what I can bring to the table, the improvements being made, and from that perspective it is nice. But the "satisfaction" level is different. The benefit of these style companies is if you want to move up the chain into a management role or something outside of engineering/technologies it makes it easier. Some of these must not be too bad because many people seem to stay at companies, universities, etc for a very long time even as engineers.
markulous wrote: » This is just a better overall company in every way possible. They actually seem to care about their employees and their growth with nice benefits, training, etc.
UncleB wrote: » This means you need to understand the language they use and how to talk to them about it. Talking about SQL queries, bandwidth limitations or the benefit of a version upgrade of your favourite widget is like the facilities guy talking about the benefit of a plastic brush handle over a wooden one - nobody cares unless you put it in a context they can relate to.
Exclusively for TechExam members. Applies to boot camps starting before April 30, 2026.