Norton Go Home! We don't want you!

[uunet!bria!mike]

In an article, ms.uky.edu!kherron (Kenneth Herron) writes:
>I think Mr. Stefanik has missed the point about Norton's for Unix.  You
>can get unix for just about any non-trivial computer these days; more and
>more "regular people" are becoming system administrators by default.
>Don't forget that a properly functioning computer is a *means to an end*,
>not an end in itself.  Some people may be more interested in using the
>computer to accomplish their real job, instead of becoming unix gurus.

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.

The end-user does not and should not need to know about anything other
than logging in, reading/sending mail, and using the application(s) that
meet his/her job requirements.  This same end-user has no use for NU.

Personally, I would never trust an administrator that leaned on menus
and shrink-wrapped scripts _too_ much.  How much is too much?  I have
encountered "sysadmins" who couldn't add a user without some sort of
script.  Not worth a dime, IMHO.

>In article <430 at bria>:
>
>>[quotes from a review of "Norton Utilities for Unix"]
>
>>	"If you're especially unlucky, you key in 'rm -rf' and then you
>>	 really start screaming.  That's because you've just deleted every
>>	 file (even if it's write protected) in the directory you're in
>>	 and every directory below it."
>
>>This is only true if you have write and search (execute) permission to the 
>>directory of files that you are trying to remove.  The permissions of the 
>>file itself have nothing to do with it, as is implied.  Superusers don't
>>casually screw around with 'rm -rf', or they aren't superusers for long.
>
>Exactly correct.  You can protect a file five ways from tuesday and it
>won't mean diddly against "rm -f".  How intuitive is that?  And needless
>to say, "rm -f" works for regular users too.  Should everyone be forced
>to recover from this mistake the hard way, just to "learn their lesson?"
>Or is it conceivable that if a way exists to make unix more user-friendly,
>it should be used?

There is a tradeoff here.  It seems to me that making things easier for you,
things get more convoluted for me.  No thanks.  How about putting a
a copy of this program in /usr/local/bin and make it first in PATH for
those end-users ...

/* rm - rm for the end-user */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <ctype.h>

main(argc,argv)
int 	argc;
char	**argv;
{
char	*file, buf[32];

	printf("Greetings poor, ignorant end-user.  I am your friendly ");
	printf("\"rm\" program\n");

	while ( --argc ) {
		file = *++argv;
		printf("I see that you want to delete \"%s\"\n",file);
		printf("Is this really true? (y/n) ");
		if ( gets(buf) == NULL )
			break;
		if ( toupper(*buf) == 'Y' ) {
			printf("Are you really, really sure? ");
			if ( gets(buf) == NULL )
				break;
			if ( toupper(*buf) != 'Y' )
				continue;
			if ( unlink(file) == -1 )
				printf("Oooops!  Sorry, I cannot do that!\n");
			else
				printf("Oh well, \"%s\" is gone forever.\n",
					file);
			}
		else 
			printf("Okay, I will not delete \"%s\"n",file);
		}
}

>Just from a productivity standpoint, an undeleter would be a lot faster
>than digging out the backup tape.  And of course it restores the latest
>version of the file, not just the last-backed-up version.

Which is fine and dandy if you don't mind increasing your disk space on
really active systems.  A DC6150 is cheaper than a 150M disk, methinks.

>>	"Norton's undelete command makes restoring files to life a cinch" ...
>>	"All you need to do is type in 'nue filename' and the file will
>>	 be back.  Unlike DOS, however, this trick will only work on files
>>	 that have been deleted since you installed Norton."
>
>>	"Norton's undelete command manages this black magic by storing
>>	 'removed' files to a hidden directory"
>
>>Now is this f*****g ugly, or what? They want me to spend money on this 
>>trash when I can pump out a few lines in /etc/profile that accomplishes
>>the exact same thing?  If you want it in your code, then simply write
>>your own flavor of unlink().  
>
>This feature has been discussed on USENET before.  As I recall, it 
>intercepts several system calls, including unlink, ftruncate, and statfs.
>If you do "cat a b > a" you can get a back.  The space taken by these backup 
>files is reported as free by all the system calls, and is automatically freed 
>for real if you need it (backup files are dumped in a user-configurable way).

Oh, that's lovely.  So, you unlink a file, but in reality it moves it
somewhere else, and to add to that, the system lies to me when I ask
how much free space there is?  In my opinion, that _sucks_.

>Further, this package is targeted toward System V unix systems, which, last 
>time I checked, don't come with source.  How is the average SysV user to 
>replace the unlink()s in system code?  Heck, we have Sysv source around
>here somewhere, but I'm not about to go recompile the whole OS just to
>replace all the unlinks and ftruncates.

So instead, you're going to puchase some kludge that mungs with the
operating system in some very uncool ways.  I'd vote for the recompile.

>
>>	"Many system administrators will be pleased with Norton disk
>>	 explorer, NDE.  This program makes disk and file-system
>>	 exploration and editing much easier." ...
>>	"Even the superblock, a Unix's file-system cornerstone, can
>>	 be edited."
>
>>Please say it ain't so.  Please!  Please!  Not yet another fantastic way
>>for the ignorant to trash their machines with yet another GUI.  I think
>>I'm going to be ill.
>
>There are plenty of ways to trash unix without help from Norton :-)
>Seriously, how often do you edit a file system?  I've never had to do it, 
>so if I did, I'd like to use something with a decent user interface.  If 
>you want to stick with fsdb or the emacs directory mode, be my guest.

Okay.

>
>>	"The goodies don't stop here.  Norton includes more than 10 other
>>	 usefull utilities.  There is, for example, NSE, Norton Shell
>>	 Enhancer.  This program provides a way to attach bells and
>>	 whistles to Unix shell programs."
>
>>Oh God.  Please.  Not another 'beep' command.  Haven't these idiots ever
>>noticed the 'tput' command?
>
>Tput doesn't have an explicit "beep" option; to get a beep from it,
>you'll have to know something about curses, as well as know about
>tput itself.  Not everyone is a power user like you.  Heck, echo ^G
>might be beyond some people; are they supposed to stay off unix just 
>because they're more interested in being secretaries or accountants
>or bank managers than unix wizards?

People who are interested in being secrataries or accountants are not
going to waste their time writing useless shell scripts that beep, or
draw boxes, or whatever.

>>Disclaimer:  I have never used Norton Utilities, either under DOS or UNIX.
>>I never will.  Pete Norton should stick to playing with his PC's, and
>>leave the UNIX world alone.  This is _my_ opinion, not my company's, and
>>I say this with great pride.
>
>I *HOPE* this isn't your company's opinion.  IMHO your attitude is a
>pretty poor one for a "systems engineer."  Not everyone has the time,
>inclination, or aptitude to learn unix (or computers at all, for that
>matter).  [...]

If you're an accountant, then do accounting, not programming.

>Are these people supposed to stick with DOS, or Macs, or not
>use computers at all?  The days when ordinary mortals bowed down to the
>computer priesthood are supposed to be over.  For the sake of the other
>employees of your company, I hope you don't manage any computers but 
>your own.

Oh, I _do_ just love little digs like this.  I reject the argument that
everyone should be able to administer a computer system.  I can't repair
cars, and I don't try to.  I go to a mechanic.  If you can't admin your
machine, then don't try to.  Hire someone who can do the job right.

Call it a priesthood, call it whatever you want.  Can you do brain surgery?
Would you moan, bitch, and complain because you have to "bow down" to
the neurosurgeon when you have a brain tumor?  I take it that you would
much rather go to medical school and perform the surgery yourself with waldoes.

As far as mortals bowing down to programmers, well, it's nonsense.  I do
a job, and I do it damn well.  Don't try to do my job, and I promise to
not try to do yours.

As an aside, why is it that there is always the argument that computers
are being used by "real people" for "real work", but the disussion has
to do with some esoteric nonsense that no end-user would even dream of
trying to do?  Just a thought.

Okay guys, I have my asbestos suit on ... let me have it.   :-) :-)
-- 
Michael Stefanik                       | Opinions stated are not even my own.
Systems Engineer, Briareus Corporation | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
technoignorami (tek'no-ig'no-ram`i) a group of individuals that are constantly
found to be saying things like "Well, it works on my DOS machine ..."