On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 17:07, Dave Miner wrote: > Christof Pintaske wrote: > > > > Basically the software that a user installs in his home directory is not > > part of a specific system. It's part of the network. So it's on vain to > > register it on a specific machine. It must be accessible wherever the > > user is roaming with his home directory. So the home directory itself > > might be a proper place or an LDAP directory ... > > > > If the home directory is on an nfs share the system admin might not be > > able to access it. The user might use the machine never again, and > > prefers to use a different one to deinstall his software (or move it to > > the trash can on a Windows box). > > Sorry, that sounds like we're just trying to say ETOOHARD, and I don't > buy it. For these cases, we can construct all sorts of cross-system > solutions, perhaps using a directory service, as you sort of seem to > allude to. Solving that would seem to be even more valuable, because > then you can help improve TCO of a larger "system".
I don't buy it either, but the way I see it is that we have to admit that it is too hard, and that building a complex framework in a vain attempt to solve an insoluble problem isn't going to work. And then we go back and build a different solution that isn't too hard. Ask a different question. Change the rules. Is it possible to install a piece of software in such a way that (a) we don't need to check it, and (b) it's self-healing against external activity. The answer is clearly yes (whether it can be done sensibly is another matter entirely). -- -Peter Tribble L.I.S., University of Hertfordshire - http://www.herts.ac.uk/ http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
