[fryke]

He didn't pick on anyone. He picked on sysadmins who claim to be sysadmins but have limited (or no) knowledge of systems outside their own. I'm usually against metaphors, but if your knowledge about catholicism is vast, yet you don't know anything about other religions or about religion in general, you shouldn't call yourself knowledgeable in "religion", but "catholicism". I'd say I agree that a sysadmin with knowledge only about Windows (or Mac OS X or SuSE Linux, pick one) should be called a "Windows administrator" (or Mac OS X administrator etc.). If you take a look at my badges in my signature (I've added those half-jokingly, btw., although I _do_ have them), I don't call myself a system administrator. I know a _lot_ about Macs. I've used (and administered) Windows and linux machines in the past, but I don't consider myself proficient in those systems. So I wouldn't call myself, this generally, a system administrator, although that was my job title in the past.

But again: Why didn't I pick up on Satcomer's post? I didn't consider it a rant. But even if: Rants are okay. The question is how much, what tone, how wrong. Satcomer's post, in my not so humble, personal opinion, was perfectly okay.