Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!sage.cc.purdue.edu!asg
From: asg@sage.cc.purdue.edu (The Grand Master)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Project Athena ( was Re: Non Destructive Version of rm)
Message-ID: <12262@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 13 May 91 16:35:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.12262
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Reply-To: asg@sage.cc.purdue.edu (The Grand Master)
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 60

In article <1991May9.201346.28483@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
}  What would happen if someone broke into one of your Symmetries?  Could they
}not delete all of the files on all the filesystems for which that machine is
}the server?
}
}  Project Athena's service machines (e.g. file servers, authentication
}servers, mail servers, etc.) are secured just as your machines are.

Exactly my point. If the main computers are setup correctly, then they are
just as secure as your servers.
}
}  On the other hand, the setup you are advocating trusts systems that are
}added.  That means that every admin is trusted.  How many people have root
}access to any of your machines, Bruce?

I never said that Purdue was the ideal setup first of all. I have described
what I think is ideal. Several powerful centralized systems which trust
each other only because they are "hard-wire" connected.
}
}|>   But Jon conveniently failed to respond to my major gripe with
}|> distributed computing. Resources go unused more often. 
}
}  The paper I referenced in my last point addresses this "major gripe," which
}is why I referenced it.  Did you bother to read it?  It's only a few pages
}long.
Well now you regerenced that in a later response to my same article. I 
am not used to people responding to the same article twice. I read your
first response, and figured you had said all you wanted to say about that
one and then responded to that. Not until later did I come upon your later
post with the reference.
}
}|> If I am doing something CPU intensive on a workstation, I gain no
}|> added benifit from the fact that only 1/10 of the workstations 
}|> are in use. I also will see a significant reduction in the speed of
}|> my window operations, since the same CPU is handling them and the
}|> intensive task.
}
}  If you are doing something so CPU intensive that your workstation slows
}down, then either (a) get a better workstation, or (b) use a compute server
}such as a Cray or DEC 9000.  As I pointed out in a previous posting, Project
}Athena users *do* have access to those resources if they need them, which
}means that we have the best of both worlds.

I DO NOT WANT A COMPUTE SERVER. I want to be running interactive. I do
NOT want to make up jcl's. Jon, some of the PLOTS I do are enough to bog
down a fairly good workstation to the point where it cannot operate the
windows. My seetup elimintes that problem since a different CPU
is handling the windows than the CPU doing the calculations.
}
}Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:

Bruce
---------
                                   ###             ##
Courtesy of Bruce Varney           ###               #
aka -> The Grand Master                               #
asg@sage.cc.purdue.edu             ###    #####       #
PUCC                               ###                #
;-)                                 #                #
;'>                                #               ##