Coherent *nix (was Concurrent UNIX)

[Tom Frauenhofer]

In article <D4NZR1w163w at mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju at mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:
>tvf at cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) writes:
>> On a serious multi-user system it wouldn't be so hot, but on most serious
>> multi-user systems that I'm familiar with, they also have single
>> switches/buttons that could bring down the system Real Fast (including
>> hardware resets on 80x86 machines).
>
>Most serious multi-user systems also have locking panels that cover
>switches that bring the system down Real Fast, because bringing the
>system down Real Fast is not usually a Desirable Thing to Do,
>Especially By Accident.

Bet you if I took you to a lot of sites that use Most Serious Systems you'd
see how unprotected they really are.

I just checked our couputer labs.  No keylocks on the sun servers.  The VAX
keylock doesn't protect you from the Real Nasty switches.  The Tahoes we
have keylocks, but the sysadmins have left the keys in them.  I've been to
many other sites, seen gobs of different hardware, if this was uncommon I
wouldn't be wasting my breath here (big companies, small companies,
universities, computer vendors, etc.).  One company lost a room full of
computers (about 20, I'd say, all reasonably sized systems) because a
visitor pressed a red button near the door.  He mistook it for the door open
switch, it was clearly marked as an emergency powerdown switch.

>Most serious multi-user systems are also kept in locked closets or
>restricted-access computer rooms, not sitting under the sysadmin's
>desk.

Chuckle.  Were that it was true.  Only when serious multi-user systems are
treated seriously.
-- 
Thomas V. Frauenhofer, WA2YYW, tvf at cci.com   | Little cockroach on the wall,
{uupsi,ccicpg}!cci632!tvf at uunet.uu.net       | Don't you have no friends at all?
tvf at frau.UUCP                                | Doesn't anybody love you?
tvf1477 at ma.cs.rit.edu                        | God will love you! (SQUISH)