Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Fabian Sturm wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:58:26PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If a sysadmin allows too many freedoms to a user, you're likely to end up
> > in big problems. Clueless users trying to 'play' with a system can
> > accidentally make a mistake and fry the work of hundreds of co-workers
> > without the intend of doing so.
> I didnt say that the system should make it possible to mess
> with other peoples data, but I should be able to play in my own
> environment without limitation.
Diskspace costs money too, for example. Unlimited diskspace is nice, but
only few companies can afford it.
> > Such an 'accident' will not only mean extra work (and thus extra money
> > being spent) for a sysadmin, but in the worst case a whole bunch of *lost*
> > work that will need to be redone. That's a lot more than you losing a few
> > minutes -- or in case of an overworked or bureaucratic sysadmin team, a
> > few days -- waiting for the sysadmin doing that job for you.
> I dont talk about minutes I talk about months and the need to
> discuss with the sysadmin why I need a special feature and that
> cant be.
> An example: I wanted xemacs on macosx, because I am used to it.
> So I asked the sysadmin to install it for me but he replied
> that I should use one of the currently installed editors.
You can't honestly expect a sysadmin to install each and every editor
being requested for. If that would be allowed, he'd probably end up
installing (and supporting!) just as much editors as there are users.
wait, no -- make that 'programmers', not users ;-)
> And now you think why I didnt install emacs on my own.
> Was not possible because the same sysadmin has set a very low,
> for me not reasonable, quota so I can only have my user data
> or emacs installed but never edit my user data with emacs....
That may indeed be a different matter. However, even a quota is not
that stupid, from a sysadmin's point of view: It's very possible to create
a program that sucks up all your diskspace in a few seconds -- a college
colleage of mine did exactly this, just to prove a point -- and even if
your users are not that abusive, there are still those idiots that refuse
to clear up ten-year-old files just because 'they might prove
useful'. With quotas, people are forced to clean up old files.
> So thats just one silly example why I think
> sysadmins shouldnt have more rights then user just the OS should
> have the proper security mechanisms.
That is unrealistic; although in a highly bureaucratic office, I can
understand your frustration.
Giving people freedom requires restricting other freedoms, to prevent less
important freedoms to interfere with more important ones. Think about that
one for a second ;-)
Anyhow; this is highly off-topic. Please reply privately, if at all.
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be
"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
-- From the movie "Antitrust"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com