Server work vs. networking

Turgon

ptilsen wrote: »

This is generally true here, too, but we are starting to have more and more -- MIS, CIS/IS, CIT/IT. There are also the career colleges (eg. ITT Tech), but you're better off with a non-IT degree. Computer Science is still relevant enough to add points to an IT resume.

A BA in something that is wholly unrelated to IT is generally worthless early in your career. You will find some helpdesks supporting specific software or hardware, which just want to see aptitude and customer service skills since the hard skills required are hyper-specific.

Even later in your career, though, an unrelated degree can hurt. Degrees in English, Philosophy, or the arts are especially worthless.

Steady on. Scott Morris has a degree in Journalism and he's doing fine. I studied History years back although admittedly I did get a Masters in IT later on. My liberal arts background has never held me back really, and it's a differentiator from the slew of IT type degrees so many people have these days. All that said I think a science, electronic engineering or IT type degree does help, particularly later down the track. People are often impressed with the engineering or physics degree on the CV of someone senior, even if it was years ago and they spent more time in the pub than in the labs.

ptilsen

vinbuck wrote: »

Out of respect for the really good server jockeys out there, there are some great ones, they are just too few and far between.

This. All of this talk of the differences stems largely from this -- in systems administration, it is easier BS, reboot, and Google your way through the problems. This means there is an enormous skill gap between the average systems guy and a top-notch one.

However, I will disagree with, or at least amend this:

vinbuck wrote:

To truly understand networking is to understand how all the pieces and parts come together.

I would contend that a good systems engineer requires a far better understanding of how an entire networked system works -- and this is why I've always advocated sysadmins get at least a CCNA-level networking knowledge. To troubleshoot a problem independently and effectively, one must understand the end-to-end system. This means understanding how the all of the hardware, software, and network devices work together to provide a user experience. Certainly, a good systems analyst/engineer/whatever needs to be able to isolate the problem to one system or set of systems.

vinbuck wrote:

When people, businesses, police/fire departments, hospitals, etc depend on you for Internet Access, Voice and critical infrastructure, then you can't exactly say, "must be a glitch, please submit a ticket and we will get back to you in a few days"

These types of systems are equally reliant on server infrastructure and the good design, configuration, and management thereof. If any critical production system isn't working, it's every bit as urgent as problem with a switch, router, or cable -- and usually at least as complicated.

it_consultant

vinbuck wrote: »

Just been my personal experience. I was a server jockey for 10 years before becoming a die hard network guy and it's a different environment - It is much more acceptable to blame software for an issue in that environment and if it can't be resolved then it's forgotten about or buried in a ticket queue.

When people, businesses, police/fire departments, hospitals, etc depend on you for Internet Access, Voice and critical infrastructure, then you can't exactly say, "must be a glitch, please submit a ticket and we will get back to you in a few days" That issue must be resolved if it requires you working through the night. It's just a different level of dedication and sense of urgency. Out of respect for the really good server jockeys out there, there are some great ones, they are just too few and far between.

There is less going on in networking than in software. I don't mean this to start a war but think about it. A switch/router boots up and reads what is essentially a text file from beginning to end and loads that into memory. In sysadmin work we have *gasp* users, who are able to touch things. Glitches in OS's and platforms are plentiful and sometimes the answer is to wait for an update from software development. Sometimes just getting to the point where we can identify the problem in a system is a multi day process. If not for the user interaction, we have different developers whose bloody applications have to deal with each other. Then we get the update / fix and it wasn't properly regression tested and the fix breaks something else.

What I am driving at is that while it is really important to maintain uptime, the possible problems and resolutions are fewer in pure network engineering. It takes a certain thought process to work out network issues, no doubt about it, but to say that simply because the pressure is more on a certain position does not imply that the job is harder or more complex.

*Edit* In my experience, as well, network "problems" ISP side and corporate side are usually related to one of two things, a device going bad (not terribly common) and the MOST common thing, an engineer doing something.

vinbuck

ptilsen wrote: »

This. All of this talk of the differences stems largely from this -- in systems administration, it is easier BS, reboot, and Google your way through the problems. This means there is an enormous skill gap between the average systems guy and a top-notch one.

However, I will disagree with, or at least amend this:
I would contend that a good systems engineer requires a far better understanding of how an entire networked system works -- and this is why I've always advocated sysadmins get at least a CCNA-level networking knowledge. To troubleshoot a problem independently and effectively, one must understand the end-to-end system. This means understanding how the all of the hardware, software, and network devices work together to provide a user experience. Certainly, a good systems analyst/engineer/whatever needs to be able to isolate the problem to one system or set of systems.

These types of systems are equally reliant on server infrastructure and the good design, configuration, and management thereof. If any critical production system isn't working, it's every bit as urgent as problem with a switch, router, or cable -- and usually at least as complicated.

I agree with you, though some organizations are fast and loose with titles and Systems Administrator is one of the most abused - so it really depends on the actual job function and whether it trends toward networks or servers

As a part time law enforcement officer, i have to disagree with you about the urgency of sever vs network infrastructure/communication...

If i'm in a firefight and I can't talk to dispatch because a network circuit is down, then that's a pretty big problem for me as I would like the SWAT types backing me up ASAP. I am not going to be as concerned if I can't look up said bad guy up on NCIC due to a server outage while he is pelting me with lead. Ok ok..this is a an extreme scenario, but working in the first responder field, communication is vastly more important that the supporting data systems - not to say they aren't important, but there is a priority. Voice, radio or text may be the difference between my life or someone else's. Accessibility to data isn't usually a life and death issue.

vinbuck

it_consultant wrote: »

There is less going on in networking than in software. I don't mean this to start a war but think about it. A switch/router boots up and reads what is essentially a text file from beginning to end and loads that into memory. In sysadmin work we have *gasp* users, who are able to touch things. Glitches in OS's and platforms are plentiful and sometimes the answer is to wait for an update from software development. Sometimes just getting to the point where we can identify the problem in a system is a multi day process. If not for the user interaction, we have different developers whose bloody applications have to deal with each other. Then we get the update / fix and it wasn't properly regression tested and the fix breaks something else.

What I am driving at is that while it is really important to maintain uptime, the possible problems and resolutions are fewer in pure network engineering. It takes a certain thought process to work out network issues, no doubt about it, but to say that simply because the pressure is more on a certain position does not imply that the job is harder or more complex.

*Edit* In my experience, as well, network "problems" ISP side and corporate side are usually related to one of two things, a device going bad (not terribly common) and the MOST common thing, an engineer doing something.

We've got users..service provider guys just call them the general public

In smaller enterprise environments, you would be on the mark, but there is a lot more happening on a network in large enterprise and carrier environments. Public network infrastructure is incredibly complex and every network device is basically a highly customized unix server that is optimized for routing/switching when you get down to it. Start throwing MPLS, VRFs and participation in the global BGP table and you've got a fairly complex animal. I won't even get into how ridiculously complicated the 4G access stuff is to integrate into your network and troubleshoot RF problems over miles of clutter. Network software is prone to bugs as well and we must work dilligently with the vendor to resolve them and identify a workaround.

And...i'm going to throw down my favorite trump card as an SP Engineer - most of my gear is out in the elements so all troubleshooting must include things like: "Is it underwater, Is smoking, do you see any fire? And my personal favorite...is there any evidence of squirrel teeth marks?"

If you can tell me the last time you had a squirrel chewing on your server, I will relinquish and bow to the Server geek overlords

Novalith478

Yeah I have decided to go for my CCNA and go down the networking route, then learn server admin/MCITP later on.

it_consultant

I haven't had squirrels on my routers, but I have had to deal with a fair amount of non-weather sealed equipment going bad from my ISP which seem to crop up whenever it turns cold here in Denver and all the southern century link techs forgot that it gets windy up here. I know that's a problem and SP networking is most certainly held to a higher standard than corporate networking for obvious reasons.

Network software is like DOS compared to the complexity that actual applications run on and on top of. I'm not knocking the network software, simpler is faster and more reliable, I get that. When you have a problem there are one of a few places it can be. Jump into a datacenter, set up some vmware, SANs, etc and the places where you get problems jumps exponentially. Then you add in developers and *gasp* users and you have a toxic sludge of possible issues.

My main problem with sysadmin work is that there is a billion ways of setting things up poorly where the system will actually limp along and basically work, which means its harder to weed out the bad ones!

networker050184

You guys are starting to sound like MAC vs PC now. Both are important and complex in their own rights. To the OP, just go with what interests you.

vinbuck

it_consultant wrote: »

I haven't had squirrels on my routers, but I have had to deal with a fair amount of non-weather sealed equipment going bad from my ISP which seem to crop up whenever it turns cold here in Denver and all the southern century link techs forgot that it gets windy up here. I know that's a problem and SP networking is most certainly held to a higher standard than corporate networking for obvious reasons.

Network software is like DOS compared to the complexity that actual applications run on and on top of. I'm not knocking the network software, simpler is faster and more reliable, I get that. When you have a problem there are one of a few places it can be. Jump into a datacenter, set up some vmware, SANs, etc and the places where you get problems jumps exponentially. Then you add in developers and *gasp* users and you have a toxic sludge of possible issues.

My main problem with sysadmin work is that there is a billion ways of setting things up poorly where the system will actually limp along and basically work, which means its harder to weed out the bad ones!

Sorry man but to equate network software to DOS in terms of complexity is just not accurate. They are more focused towards networking and not designed to handle all the layer 7+ tasks that more generalized OSs are designed for, but to equate that to reduced complexity isn't accurate. Cisco IOS is probably one of the most complicated and esoteric operating systems out there. When you first learn the basics, it appears simple enough but once you see that vast tomes of RFCs that are written in support of each command, you begin to understand just how far the down the rabbit hole goes. There is a reason the CCIE is the king of IT certs and it's expressly because the IOS is an extremely useful yet complex system and requires years and years of network kung fu to master.

I've been there and done linux, unix and windows server design and support (and I still have to manage about 30 linux servers for network support as a side task) and it wasn't nearly as challenging to me as networking.

vinbuck

networker050184 wrote: »

You guys are starting to sound like MAC vs PC now. Both are important and complex in their own rights. To the OP, just go with what interests you.

Well now that you mention it, let me tell you why I hate OS "XYZ"

dustinmurphy

networker050184 wrote: »

You guys are starting to sound like MAC vs PC now. Both are important and complex in their own rights. To the OP, just go with what interests you.

Both can be as easy or complex as you want it to be. A few dumb switches (unmanaged) and a Linksys router can constitute as a "network"... then again, a domain controller and a file server could be considered "server admin". But, get into more complex architectures with either one, and they can both have their challenges. On the network side, you can't always control all the equipment (see ISP), with Servers and software, you can, however there are more applications and places a server/application can fail.

In other words, they both have their simplicity and complexity. Neither one will "win" in an argument.

BTW - Mac sucks. ;P

VAHokie56

Sett wrote: »

Whichever you pick, you'll blame the other one way too often :P

Haha, das funny right der

it_consultant

vinbuck wrote: »

Sorry man but to equate network software to DOS in terms of complexity is just not accurate. They are more focused towards networking and not designed to handle all the layer 7+ tasks that more generalized OSs are designed for, but to equate that to reduced complexity isn't accurate. Cisco IOS is probably one of the most complicated and esoteric operating systems out there. When you first learn the basics, it appears simple enough but once you see that vast tomes of RFCs that are written in support of each command, you begin to understand just how far the down the rabbit hole goes. There is a reason the CCIE is the king of IT certs and it's expressly because the IOS is an extremely useful yet complex system and requires years and years of network kung fu to master.

I've been there and done linux, unix and windows server design and support (and I still have to manage about 30 linux servers for network support as a side task) and it wasn't nearly as challenging to me as networking.

Your still dealing with a system that can be loaded into the memory of $5 flash drive. The operation of a switch or a router is much simpler than the operation of a server in almost every way conceivable. What I am not saying is that when you start plugging them into each other and sending packets that don't get complicated - that's not true either and I wouldn't say that.

The fact that Cisco proprietary software is stupid in some ways doesn't mean that what its actually doing is all that complex or difficult. The reality is I can set up a linux (windows no longer really supports routing) server which does all of the things a cisco can do short of wire speed switching. I can do all of that while also running a web server, database, etc on the same hardware.

If what you are saying is that Cisco IOS is hard to learn and master, that's one thing, that isn't the equivalent of saying that networking as a science is harder and more complex than sysadmin work. I would say that Windows and VMWARE and Linux is easier to learn than Cisco IOS, but I would say that the interplay between all three is much more complex than networking - just based on the sheer volume of software (or, memory address seekers) that go into making servers/systems function.

Well, I don't think that linux is that easy to learn in the first place

If we are really honest, all networking is software anyway, and sysadmins work almost entirely with software, so we should all be friends.

ptilsen

vinbuck wrote: »

Voice, radio or text may be the difference between my life or someone else's. Accessibility to data isn't usually a life and death issue.

My point was that those verticals depend on servers just as much as networks. What if your SWAT team's communication system relies on DNS? What if the DNS server has a problem? What if the database housing patient medical records is down, and your doctor can't get at any of your records as a result?

Outside of emergency services, getting into the private sector, do you know how many business -- especially small businesses -- depend heavily on email? I recently went about 50 hours straight without sleep rebuilding a corrupted Exchange server with no good backup because our client was going to go out of business if we couldn't restore normal operations in time for some of their deadlines. Maybe no lives were on the line, but about 20 people's jobs were.

That one really highlights the importance of competent system administrators, since that incident was ultimately caused by poor design and management of the backup system.

networker050184 wrote: »

You guys are starting to sound like MAC vs PC now. Both are important and complex in their own rights. To the OP, just go with what interests you.

...yep.

Forsaken_GA

it_consultant wrote: »

If we are really honest, all networking is software anyway, and sysadmins work almost entirely with software, so we should all be friends.

It's a pointless argument when it boils down to it. The packet generators can't do anything useful without the flow, and the flow is silent if there aren't any packet generators. When folks argue about which is better, all they're really doing is being coy about stating their preferences.

The relationship is symbiotic. If one goes away, so does the need for the other. Those who wish to be masters of their craft stay competent in both realms if they are wise.

To put it another way, decide if you want to be a mechanic, or a plumber. Both are necessary, so play to your strengths.

dustinmurphy

it_consultant wrote: »

Your still dealing with a system that can be loaded into the memory of $5 flash drive. The operation of a switch or a router is much simpler than the operation of a server in almost every way conceivable. What I am not saying is that when you start plugging them into each other and sending packets that don't get complicated - that's not true either and I wouldn't say that.

The fact that Cisco proprietary software is stupid in some ways doesn't mean that what its actually doing is all that complex or difficult. The reality is I can set up a linux (windows no longer really supports routing) server which does all of the things a cisco can do short of wire speed switching. I can do all of that while also running a web server, database, etc on the same hardware.

If what you are saying is that Cisco IOS is hard to learn and master, that's one thing, that isn't the equivalent of saying that networking as a science is harder and more complex than sysadmin work. I would say that Windows and VMWARE and Linux is easier to learn than Cisco IOS, but I would say that the interplay between all three is much more complex than networking - just based on the sheer volume of software (or, memory address seekers) that go into making servers/systems function.

Well, I don't think that linux is that easy to learn in the first place

If we are really honest, all networking is software anyway, and sysadmins work almost entirely with software, so we should all be friends.

And Linux can't be loaded to a $5 flash drive? I beg to differ on that one, my friend.

Networking being software is just as much as a "server" being JUST software. The OSI model shows that networking is just as much software as it is hardware.(Layers 1-3). The hardware is just as important as the software. For instance, I had to figure out why we lost connectivity any time someone moved a file across the network. What I found out(the hard way) is that routers can't route at wire speed and are limited by CPU and RAM as much as servers are. (I had a 2611xm that got stomped on any time it routed large amounts of data).

Again, servers and networking can be as simple or complex as you want them to be. They both have their easy parts and their more difficult parts. I've worked with both of them... in medium and small environments. (last company was about 50-60 servers (including VMWare w/iSCSI and a SQL cluster)... and 5 different sites connected together, current one is a smaller company with only about 15 servers and connected to 2 different locations). The network and server infrastructure at my last company was very complex. The one at my current company isn't very complex....

Turgon

A lot of people think they are a ninja or want to be a ninja. Many who think they are, are not. Many who want to be either have no real understanding of what it takes to be that good, or actually can be that good...

So a lot of people in IT are sitting in the bellcurve someplace and that's fine. 98% of us and we do a great job when we apply ourselves and work *together*. Each area has it's own special responsibilities and each needs it's specialists. Networking and Server professionals need to be a little more aware of one another's responsibilities.


I have done servers, Netware, NT 4.0, Exchange, Enterprise Solaris, DNS, EXIM, Veritas, Oracle, and for 10 years now I have specialised in networking. There is mediocrity in both fields, but also excellence. Systems problems can be very difficult to pin down but tend to be local and internalised affecting the system itself or its endusers or both. Network problems can be very difficult to pin down and tend to be either datalink or protocol related across a pan network geography and sometimes affecting every system and its users.

So in one sense the heat is on the network guys to solve problems, but then again, I would rather have to rebuild a router than a mission critical Oracle cluster that 10 million customers need to access..and right now.

I have had to help server engineers get a routing table off a box.
I have know firewall engineers who cannot follow a state table and have never read an RFC or know what one is.


A network without services is useless.
Services without a network dont amount to much.

Specialists on both sides need to learn a little about what one another's jobs involve and the technologies and respect one another.

My two cents.

vinbuck

We will all evaluate it according to our experiences and frame of reference and I agree that in the business model, both have important roles.

However, for me personally the business arguments are merely that - business arguments. A server remaining up never saved my life, but commo sure has. And that's why it's easier from a personal point of view to rate their importance using my other line of work as a benchmark.

Turgon

vinbuck wrote: »

We will all evaluate it according to our experiences and frame of reference and I agree that in the business model, both have important roles.

However, for me personally the business arguments are merely that - business arguments. A server remaining up never saved my life, but commo sure has. And that's why it's easier from a personal point of view to rate their importance using my other line of work as a benchmark.

If you are talking military then yes I understand what you mean. Commercially something usually has to be listening on the far side for the network to be useful, a transaction system etc.

Forsaken_GA

vinbuck wrote: »

However, for me personally the business arguments are merely that - business arguments. A server remaining up never saved my life, but commo sure has. And that's why it's easier from a personal point of view to rate their importance using my other line of work as a benchmark.

Let go of your narrow focus for a second and ask yourself whether or not information that's been available on the internet has ever been responsible for saving a life. If you don't know, then go do some research.

You're smart enough to realize that your viewpoint doesn't define an absolute reality, so why do you keep arguing like it does?

vinbuck

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Let go of your narrow focus for a second and ask yourself whether or not information that's been available on the internet has ever been responsible for saving a life. If you don't know, then go do some research.

You're smart enough to realize that your viewpoint doesn't define an absolute reality, so why do you keep arguing like it does?

Call em like I see em. I'm am obviously voicing an opinion based on first hand experience but I think comparing tactical communications to "someone's life probably was saved due to information on the internet" is waxing a little too philosophical for my taste. You're making an generalized assumption (which most likely is an accurate one) and i'm drawing on specific experiences to make a point - that simply for certain applications of technology, some parts are critical and some aren't - you certainly aren't obliged to agree with my assessment, but if you've never had to depend on communications under fire like millions of first responders/military have, then you're going to draw your conclusions from a more technical perspective and not a tactical one.

There is no absolute reality with respect to this topic and I realize that; my intent in my original posts was to prompt the realization that in certain environments, communications infrastructure is the most critical technology component. Now if I really wanted to start a fight, I should take the side of the infantry guys who protect the commo guys, so really the grunt with the rifle is MORE important than the commo gusy...ok i'm gonna shut up now before I start getting knives thrown at me.....

Turgon

vinbuck wrote: »

Call em like I see em. I'm am obviously voicing an opinion based on first hand experience but I think comparing tactical communications to "someone's life probably was saved due to information on the internet" is waxing a little too philosophical for my taste. You're making an generalized assumption (which most likely is an accurate one) and i'm drawing on specific experiences to make a point - that simply for certain applications of technology, some parts are critical and some aren't - you certainly aren't obliged to agree with my assessment, but if you've never had to depend on communications under fire like millions of first responders/military have, then you're going to draw your conclusions from a more technical perspective and not a tactical one.

There is no absolute reality with respect to this topic and I realize that; my intent in my original posts was to prompt the realization that in certain environments, communications infrastructure is the most critical technology component. Now if I really wanted to start a fight, I should take the side of the infantry guys who protect the commo guys, so really the grunt with the rifle is MORE important than the commo gusy...ok i'm gonna shut up now before I start getting knives thrown at me.....

In a war situation, yes. Hopefully with Iraq done, Afghanistan dissolving and Iran being a non starter, they will get a nuclear bomb and theres nothing we can do about it, IT discussions will finally be more commercially based and less miiltarised. I appreciate your service but there is more to life than kicking ass. I remember a poster in 2003 talking about contractors working on the Iraq stock exchange windows 2000 upgrade when the locals had problems with basic services we take for granted in the west, like hospitals not in pieces, security, power, food and water. No certification track, book, CoD or anything for that matter that I have read the last 14 years has had a military connotation.

vinbuck

Turgon wrote: »

No certification track, book, CoD or anything for that matter that I have read the last 14 years has had a military connotation.

You mean outside of TCP/IP being developed by the US DoD for battlefield communication right? That's the first question on the CCIE exam..come on man!

Just poking fun at ya Good points - I swear i'm not trying to be an instigator - somehow I just always find myself in the middle of the $h17.

Turgon

vinbuck wrote: »

You mean outside of TCP/IP being developed by the US DoD for battlefield communication right? That's the first question on the CCIE exam..come on man!

Just poking fun at ya Good points - I swear i'm not trying to be an instigator - somehow I just always find myself in the middle of the $h17.

And the Russians knew that inside of hours after it was laid down. But then Russian's are very intelligent people.

it_consultant

If we are talking about what is absolutely CRITICAL to business, government, and infrastructure, then neither sysadmins nor network guys will win; it is probably telephony which is most critical to have complete uptime on. Of course, they are all soft switches now - which are just servers - which are pinned into data networks...my head is spinning.

DevilWAH

Come on we all know it, a network with out systems running on it is the same as systems with out a network to run on. Pretty much useless!!

You can take either and there is more to learn and more complexities that any one person will ever learn in there life time. Show me one person who is a complete network or systems engineer and has nothing left to learn?

At the end of the day its all the same, networking is about sending and routing bits of date between system, while a system engineer deals with routing the data between applications and to the end user. When you really get in to the depths of things its all the same, The logic of how and exchange server works is identical to how a network router deals with packets of date, its all logical steps of "if this, do x, if some thing else do y".

I would say in general networking is slightly closer to the fundamental level, and is much more standardised that servers (forced due to the fact that multiply network devices act as a single system/network), while servers are more specialised and individualize generally do a more complex role.

And this is reflected in how you will often find system admins start to specialise much earlier than Network admins, in to a specific field/ disciplin.

A crap system/network engineer is a crap engineer, and good ones are worth the money and should be respected equally. Having spent 5 years honing my skills in both before moving to specialise in networking, I am a capable system engineer as well as being a certified network engineer. On the surface it is easy to dismiss either one as the "easy one", but any one with experience knows they both require a high level of skill and dedication to become successful in.

@it-consultant, I would agree that as a single system a network device is often (i hate to use the work) simpler than a server, especially if that server is running an application such as a domain controller or exchange.

The difference is that a network is managed as a single unit, so you may have 250+ devices all exchanging configurations (such as route updates) and basically reconfiguring the entire network on the fly. Large networks are finely tuned, virtual beasts, with many 100,000 if not millions of lines of config to keep them running.

You can think of it as network admin deal Large numbers of fundemental technologies that have to run in harmony alongside each other, spread out across large logical and physical areas.

System admin deal with more discrete technologies, but the indivual technologies are more complex.

They require two different mindset, and so it is rare for one person to excel in both. That's why people who do have a in depth understanding of both are highly prized in the workplace

Novalith478

SO back on topic...I really only asked what either or entails, not which one is better. Anyways, I decided to go with CCNA for now.


Thanks for all the input, even if it started a Network vs. Server war

ptilsen

Novalith478 wrote: »

SO back on topic...I really only asked what either or entails, not which one is better. Anyways, I decided to go with CCNA for now.


Thanks for all the input, even if it started a Network vs. Server war

The title of the thread ended up being far more apt than anyone expected.

Forsaken_GA

vinbuck wrote: »

Call em like I see em. I'm am obviously voicing an opinion based on first hand experience but I think comparing tactical communications to "someone's life probably was saved due to information on the internet" is waxing a little too philosophical for my taste. You're making an generalized assumption (which most likely is an accurate one) and i'm drawing on specific experiences to make a point - that simply for certain applications of technology, some parts are critical and some aren't - you certainly aren't obliged to agree with my assessment, but if you've never had to depend on communications under fire like millions of first responders/military have, then you're going to draw your conclusions from a more technical perspective and not a tactical one.

Let me ask you a question - are you saying that there are absolutely no servers involved in getting first responders or military folk to where they need to be?

I realize what your perception is, and perceptions do tend to define our reality, but I'm curious as to whether or not you've actually looked into how it's all put together. Military on the ground is one thing, obviously you're not going to be running lines in the dirt on a combat front.... but I'll bet theres servers in use to support the mission back at the headquarters.

You mentioned you're part time law enforcement. Go talk to the folks responsible for the setup of your dispatch and 911 call centers. I think you'll find out that there's some software involved that doesn't run on a router or switch that's involved in getting first responders to the right place at the right time.

And finally, you need to rein it in a bit. Unless your first responders/military folk have their communications running over IP, then it's outside the scope of the argument, as comms over POTS is totally different than battlefield comms, etc.

Sett

The complexity of the networking doesn't come from the complexity of the software running on the device. It's like to say that some programing language is easy because its compiler is simple. Good network engineer is the one who can explain you what are the VEB bits in the Router LSA, not the one who knows how to type "router ospf 1" and "network blah blah blah". I have huge respect to every good engineer, doesn't matter in what area they are working.