Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Fabian Sturm wrote:
> > I think your idea that a GNU System shouldn't allow the sysadmin to limit
> > the freedoms of the users is pretty ridiculous. After all, it's the
> > sysadmin who owns the machine, pays for the network connection, is
> > responsible for network traffic originating at the machine, etc...
> > Certainly if a sysadmin WANTED to give users free reign of the machine,
> > that's fine... but they're certainly under no obligation to do so.
>
> I really get mad when I hear that the sysadmin owns the machine and pays
> for its used resources. Whenever I worked somewhere and I had a sysadmin
> it was the sysadmin who got payed by me and wouldnt be there if
> we wouldnt work with the computers and need them.
> And I lost so much time (which means money) just because the sysadmin
> thought I wouldnt need this or that feature or similar.
Remember that every story has two sides.
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.
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.
There's also the issue of trust: a small company will not have such
problems, but once the company reaches the point where it is not possible
to know everyone, there's the risk of a malicious user intentionally
trying to destroy data.
Granted, such a malicious user will probably be sacked once he does such a
thing, but at that time, the bad things have happened. And if you don't
know everyone, you don't know whether there could be a maniac amongst your
users...
> So please dont think that sysadmins should have any right to forbid
> something to the users who actually use the machines.
They sure do. It's their responsability to ensure that the system is
secure. If they cannot know all their users, then they must ensure those
users cannot do anything potentially harmful -- be it intentionally or
accidentally.
--
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be
"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
-- From the movie "Antitrust"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: