Re: Re: Locking Down Users

Richard.Corfield.Admin-XZoyATsUNX5Wk0Htik3J/[email protected] wrote:

>
>Though the concepts come up a lot, depending on where you're discussing
>use of Linux. So many comparisons of Linux vs Windows, and therefore
>Linux suitability, assume that you wish to follow the Windows model and
>"Personally Yours", yet Linux's roots are UNIX and central resources.
>
--
Linux's *roots* may be Unix (btw. in "Unix" it's just the "U"
that's capitalized) but that does not mean that Linux *is* or
*should* be *limited* to what Unix does.

Also, "Personally Yours" might be part of the Micro$oft
campaign slogan, but really they just give lip-service to
it. The fact that Micro$oft gives lip-service to something
is not a valid reason for Linux to not-do it for real.
--

>
>These studies like to talk about the cost of running a whole Linux
>corporation - on Samba! They then talk about the difficulty of managing 
>huge networks of client machines. 
>
>Why use Samba in a wholly Linux corporation?  You'd be on NFS and NIS -
>or all logging in remotely on X terminals. 
>
--
Correct. There *is* no point in running Samba on an all-Linux
network. NFS should work just fine.

I still don't see what that has to do with preventing users
from installing software on their own accounts? You aren't
connecting your arguments here.

By the way, I assume "network" is what you mean by "corporation",
as "corporation" is a legal/commercial term, *not* a technological
term.
--

>Tools such as rdist or 
>Linux Diskless Client make managing of the client machines easier.
>Boot off network, and forget about it.
>
--
Could you enlighten me as to what "rdist" is? I can't
find a man-page on it.
--

>
>
>The total cost of ownership drops dramatically in this case as you have
>central installation, management, backup, upgrade.
>
--
Yes, it *is* nice to have these things available on all
the *basic* software. And it would be nice if the admin
could also install *every* piece of software I need when
I need it installed.

But sometimes, that just isn't realistic. For one thing,
admins are rather busy people. If I had to ask the admin
to install/upgrade one of my database programs every
time I needed it done, my work would get nowhere fast.

Furthermore, it's a good idea to back up your own data
once-in-a-while *anyway* just in-case something goes
wrong with your service-provider.
--

> You get resource
>sharing, which Linux is designed to be good at, and more efficient use
>of available processing power. Machine on desk dies - drop in a new one
>from stock, jobs done in no time.
>
> My Windows machine at work is dead,
>and IT are taking ages to replace it. I also miss the ability to log in 
>anywhere on the Windows network. 
>
--
Now, I don't believe you can expediently replace a machine
of the desired OS no matter *what* OS you are using it if
your company doesn't have the *hardware* resources necessary.

But yes, my dad, who has installed both Linux and Windows
does tell me that Linux is much easier to install than
Windows. So for that reason I see why your Linux machine
can be replaced faster.

But what does that have to do with allowing or not-allowing
users to install stuff on their own accounts?
--

>
>
>The big fear against "Personally Yours" is what happens if the central
>machine goes down.
>
What has one got to do with the other?
I don't follow.

> So you get a decent support contract for it, or support
>it well in house. Maybe you have a failover plan or clustering.  Its One
>machine, not hundreds or thousands.  Anyway, if we lose our database
>server or network router, noone here can work anyway. I've worked on
>mainframes, and downtime was very rare. University ran a clustered HPUX
>setup with X Windows login, and I don't remember any complete system
>unavailability apart from weekly backups in my first year which they
>were doing without downtime by the time I finished there.
>
--
I really don't understand what all your talking about
has to do with allowing users to install or not-install
software on their own accounts?

You're logic is really difficult to follow.
--


Adam