Norton Go Home! We don't want you!

[The Grey Wolf]

In article <it1.666574798 at ra> it1 at ra.MsState.Edu (Tim Tsai) writes:
>In article <433 at 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.

A 386 Unix box almost seems like an oxymoron (I have yet to see a stable
386ix), but that's another department.

>
>  There are lots of computer proficient "end-users" who aren't
>  sysadmins, and they'll use whatever tools they find necessary.
>

Great.  As long as the tools that they use are what is handy.  These tools
are not as likely to kludge up the kernel and/or munge the filesystem.

>
>  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?

Perhaps a bit far fetched, but what's wrong with packages which ease the
job is that THE POTENTIAL SYSADMIN NEVER LEARNS HOW IT WORKS.  He plugs it
in.  It goes.  It's magic.  What if he has to go somewhere else where
the simplistic plug-and-go utility is Not There?  He's shit outta luck
because he didn't take the time to understand the underlying mechanics
about what was going on.  It's as bad as a car mechanic whose only option
is to replace parts because he doesn't know how to repair/refurbish/adjust
them.

>
>>>In article <430 at bria>:
>
>  How does installing a package make things any more difficult for you?
>  Don't you already do that on a regular basis if you are a sysadmin?
>  With an undelete package, I can only see less trouble for a
>  sysadmin..  For one, he/she wouldn't have to keep answering messages
>  asking how to undelete a file (or at least have a solution)!  Note
>  that I dislike Norton Utilities, but there are instances where an
>  undelete command would've come in handy.  I don't go around
>  complaining to my sysadmin about it because I know there isn't an easy
>  solution...  If there IS an easy solution that doesn't create any
>  hassle for the sysadmin however, I certainly would...

Implement a different version of "rm" for the novice users and make an
alias to it.  This has been frowned upon in many circles, but we have
two options, both of which depend upon what the user expects to be doing.
For a novice user, having an extra "rm" sitting around isn't such a bad
thing.  The disadvantage is that the user will become accustomed to it
and might not have that luxury of "recover"able files at his next job.

The other option is to learn how to use the computer and realise that the
"rm" command is NOT to be used with impunity.  When you delete something,
you delete it.  It's *gone* except for yesterday's backups unless you
worked for four hours creating it between then and now.

I have a trash-management scheme for "rm".  If there's sufficient interest
in it I'll repost it to comp.sources.unix.

-- 
# The days of the computer priesthood are not over.
# May they never be.
# If it sounds selfish, consider how most companies stay in business.