Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!bria!mike From: mike@bria Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell Subject: Re: Norton Go Home! We don't want you! Message-ID: <455@bria> Date: 16 Feb 91 21:37:35 GMT References: <1991Feb6.085431.6076@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> <430@bria> <433@bria> Reply-To: uunet!bria!mike Followup-To: comp.unix.misc Distribution: na Organization: MGI Group International, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 68 In an article, ra.MsState.Edu!it1 (Tim Tsai) writes: |In article <433@bria>: ||In an article, ms.uky.edu!kherron (Kenneth Herron) writes: ||In my "not-quite-so-humble" opinion, armchair sysadmins deserve DOS. ||You are talking about two things here: system administration and end-use. ||In the DOS world, "end-user" and "administrator" are one in the same. ||Not so in the UNIX world. | | It is very often the case in the 386/Unix world.. With prices of | workstations dropping, more end users will have their own Unix box on | their desk. And most of these workstations with be networked, and have a central authority. I doubt that since an accountant has his dumb terminal replaced with a workstation, he is going to be that much more inclined to admin his workstation by virtue of it's capability to be administered. ||The end-user does not and should not need to know about anything other ||than logging in, reading/sending mail, and using the application(s) that ||meet his/her job requirements. This same end-user has no use for NU. | | There are lots of computer proficient "end-users" who aren't | sysadmins, and they'll use whatever tools they find necessary. Computer proficient users can do whatever they like, permissions not with- standing. However, the thrust of tool development is, and should be, the computer professional. ||Personally, I would never trust an administrator that leaned on menus ||and shrink-wrapped scripts _too_ much. How much is too much? I have ||encountered "sysadmins" who couldn't add a user without some sort of ||script. Not worth a dime, IMHO. | | Sysadmins' gotta start somewhere. Were you born with knowledge of | Unix internals? What's wrong with packages that ease the job of system | administrators? By your definition, any sysadmin that relies on a | full-screen editor isn't worth a dime either. A *REAL* sysadmin would | use ed, right? Yes, you do have to start somewhere. My point was that too many UNIX "professionals" are not learning the _innards_ of the operating system. They are using scripts and such (that were designed to make routine jobs a bit easier) as a _crutch_. And yes, a sysadmin that relies on 'vi' and has no idea how to use 'ed' is NOT worth a dime. Know why? Sometime, he's gonna run into a situation where his /usr filesystem got hosed, or the /etc/termcap got chunked. If something like that stops a sysadmin, then yep, he's worthless as a plug nickel. ||There is a tradeoff here. It seems to me that making things easier for you, ||things get more convoluted for me. No thanks. How about putting a ||a copy of this program in /usr/local/bin and make it first in PATH for ||those end-users ... | | How does installing a package make things any more difficult for you? It depends. Since Norton attaches itself, virus-like, to my kernel, and induces the kernel to lie to me about the true state of affairs on the system, I would count this as a hinderance. | I'm glad you aren't my sysadmin. And, oh boy am I glad you're not my end-user. :-) -- Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc., Los Angeles| Opinions stated are not even my own. Title of the week: Systems Engineer | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remember folks: If you can't flame MS-DOS, then what _can_ you flame?