Again as a user I hope this would be useful: In my experience if it turns out, a sysadmin is lazy, then sometimes I start to feel I have to get back to paper technology. Once i had to make a graphics and I tend to use Gnuplot. And it turned out that our admin had upgraded something and one library required for gnuplot was not installed so i had to use MS Excel, because the features in OpenOffice.org were not enyough yet. I think it is a problem, when the sysadmin has too much power. It is better to allow the user to install programs.
Regards, Janis Prikulis > > > >> Message du 05/11/05 17:46 >> De : "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> A : [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Copie ? : l4-hurd@gnu.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Objet : Re: Sysadmins >> >> On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 11:49 +0100, Emmanuel Colbus wrote: >> > In the main >> > areas, policy isn't that strong, and the total amount of disk >> > space is far lower than the sum of all quotas... >> > >> > Therefore, it's also the administrator's business to ensure users >> > aren't wasting their space for nothing... >> >> The first statement is true, and it follows necessarily from the >> mathematics of resource management. >> >> The second statement does not follow from the first. Here are two >> alternatives: > > There is a misunderstanding here. > > I think I need to remind you of the context of my sentences in this > thread. > I was arguing against an architecture who would have *required* that users > installed all their own software, or trust some other users, in order to > need > fewer interventions from the admin. > > Therefore, I argued that it was the business of the admin to ensure users > didn't had to do such things - that is, not choosing a system who would > have > required such operations. > > Anyway, we can discuss this particular issue too : > >> >> 1. It is the system administrator's duty to monitor *usage* (as >> opposed to content) and determine whose usage needs to be >> curtailed. Any subsequent negotiation about whether the content >> is valuable can be undertaken between the humans without requiring >> architectural support for spying. > > Yes, that's the good idea, I think. But, as I stated in > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/l4-hurd/2005-11/msg00060.html , > it sometimes doesn't works that easy. > >> >> 2. Alternatively, it is the system administrator's duty to buy >> more disk. >> >> The second point deserves more thought than we usually give it: in many >> cases, the cost of a new disk drive is substantially less than the cost >> of the employee-time to throw things away. > > Yes, if he administrates a PC which has enough space to get a new disk, > and > enough hardware to archive its data, and not too much other requirements. > > But if it comes to a great computer, I don't think it's a valuable > approach. > > Additionnaly, adding disks is a strategy which has limits; and current > system design doesn't make that easy to do at all : for example, if > accounts > are stored on the same partition, splitting them can be difficult > (problems > include eg. hard links, user scripts (because their $HOME would change), > some administration scripts, etc...). > > Emmanuel > > > > _______________________________________________ > L4-hurd mailing list > L4-hurd@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd > _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list L4-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
