lindows comes to walmart

[Andrew Mathews]

Tyler Regas wrote:
<snip>
> VMware Workstation offers warnings on all operations that can be
> disabled when the user is familiar with everything. There is also an
> option to turn them all off at once. I wouldn't be surprised to find
> that there was an option in the console install that turned it off
> before it ever showed the first warning.
> 
> This is just me, oc, but I don't find that to be anything like that
> damned paperclip. VMware Workstation is considered a tool for
> professionals. The very same professionals that you claim don't want
> warnings for everything. Its very likely they don't, but continued
> experience with a system is required before even the smartest admin
> doesn't need help anymore.

Which is why man pages, documentation, and training exist. It's also why 
  test platforms are called that, to test on. You NEVER make a change on 
a production system unless you know exactly what you're doing. If anyone 
could do it, why would we even need SysAdmins? To fix the mistakes made 
by those who think they know what they're doing. Most will be the first 
to say they *don't* know everything, but also that they will diligently 
search for the answer beforehand and not depend on a confirmation dialog 
to catch their mistakes.

> Using your doctor reference... Imagine if a doctor was using a laser to
> correct your vision and that the slightest mistake would leave you blind.
> When the doctor sets the coordinates or whatever they set into the
> system, would you want him or her to just blindly click the "Burn"
> button, confident that despite their humanity they never make mistakes, or
> would it make you feel better if they were required to doublecheck all
> of their settings against your needs before proceeding? Is your sight
> worth an additional minute or two?

A doctor also doesn't have backups to restore from, redundant hardware 
mirroring capabilities, and DOES have insurance if he makes a mistake. 
He also doesn't let the receptionist hone her skills on patients. That's 
exactly why you can't let normal users play doctor.

> I don't make this argument because I don't understand. I make it because
> we need to develop interfaces (which doesn't necessarily mean GUI) that
> work with whomever gets on the system. Nobody, even an admin, should be
> allowed to destroy an entire installation because they have the
> priviledges to edit config files. This is bad design. In another light,
> would you feel slighted or shut out if you were disallowed from changing
> a LILO or GRUB configuration parameter that would cause the system to no
> longer work? Would it not be enough to be able to modify LILO or GRUB to
> boot in various ways without having access to damaging alterations?

Somebody has to be able to do anything, even if it's rm -rf /* otherwise 
we're back to a system that's not in our control. Just like what 
Microsoft sells.

> Maybe you're right. Maybe I just don't get it...

I "got it" after having to rebuild numerous machines caused by users who 
hosed production boxes because they were granted privileges they should 
never have had. They caused hundreds of other users a lot of pain, 
grief, lost work, and money. And guess who was caught in the middle? If 
you fixed it you were a saint, if you couldn't, you were a sinner, even 
if you didn't commit the sin, you just inherited it. It's not the best 
way to learn why things are the way they are. :)

-- 
Andrew Mathews
------------------------------------------------------------
   4:45pm  up 35 days, 16:24,  9 users,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
------------------------------------------------------------
Is this TERMINAL fun?