That you're a middle manager doesn't surprise me, actually. Your attitude of casually dismissing a differing viewpoint and approach shows that more clearly than your claim to that title ever could. Is it easier to just blame big bad Microsoft instead of your own inexperience or ineptitude?
Because it's yet again another program or service to manage. Active Directory is integrated, nearly all of the Office suite is AD aware, and Windows 2000/XP/2003 are natively AD aware?
I supported Novell 4.11 and the abortion that was ZENWorks. If you have complaints about Windows speed and usability, the Novell client and anything Novell made the machines slow, unreliable, and difficult to use.
I'll admit, I'll go look at 'eDirectory' (Goddammit with the e- and i- prefixes), but all of your links are to Novell... which probably isn't the most unbiased resource.:)
A.) Sysprep or RIS. Learn it, love it. B.) Admin rights for applications: Fallacy. You can grant pseudo-admin rights to certain directories or applications via group policy or security policies (Adobe springs right to mind) if necessary. This is *not* a fault of the Windows OS security model inasmuch as it's a failure of the application requiring permissions to an entire folder or registry key. C.) "Each requires different drivers" - and Linux doesn't?! Seriously. Windows is actually usually far more forgiving about fucked up hardware - it will either fail to safe mode, or disable the hardware.
"We use the same image for 345s that we use with 445s - no sweat." Uhhhh, but you're bitching that Windows wants the proper drivers for the hardware? So you're OK with "close enough" on your blades, eh? I would suspect your higher-ups would like to know that their machines are being loaded properly with the correct drivers for the hardware they're installed on, in order to make sure they're the most stable, most reliable machines they can be.
I love Linux, use Linux daily, but also admin Windows machines. Use the right tools for the job, and learn a bit more about how to propery install and configure your machines, dude.
Based on Ubuntu, I strongly recommend you check it out - at about a 200MB ISO, it will fit on a flash drive. The LiveCD is great, and it works with all the Ubuntu repositories if you install it to the HDD.
http://www.watsky.net
I *love* BeatrIX. It runs great on old hardware, has the right set of starter apps for Mom, and can be tweaked to your liking as you wish.
It's spelled Microsoft, or MS if you're abbreviating. The 12-year old "M$" makes you look stupid. Microsoft DOES own the groupware arena - Lotus Notes/Domino has a ways to go.
Obviously, you have not seen even used a 'true groupware.'
Yup, sure have. Was a Notes/Domino administrator for some years, actually. Give me a Linux client for Domino, then. No, no, iNotes doesn't count. I want a full client that does everything the Windows fat client does.
Domino... sigh. What potential, what a fucking nightmare to implement and keep running cleanly. Not that Exchange is a cakewalk - each have their foibles. Notes/Domino "wins", however, for having the worst UI design, and unconventional keybindings (F9 to refresh?!). The THREE clients - Notes, Notes Developer, and Domino Administrator (yes, I'm aware they use the same framework) - all share the same bloat and unfriendliness.
Exchange has become the defacto standard. Most Domino organizations don't use the groupware features beyond resource & calendar sharing. I've seen very few use Domino.doc or SameTime.
If Lotus/IBM could build a better interface - basically, start over - it would be great. Perhaps they could include Notes support in the Windows port of Evolution, which could then be ported back to the Linux side...
The Notes client runs very well under Wine, WineX, or any other variant... even with custom code.
Give it a shot.
Re:If you need to Kompile it yourself...
on
KDE 3.4 goes Beta
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Your overly defensive and sarcastic post notwithstanding...
I'm glad you like Gentoo. I personally don't give much of a damn about it. My comment was more about Linux being user friendly, and not about the nuts and bolts.
Multitasking is fine; if that's what you're into. From all the rabid Gentoo users (and you guys are fanatical - you're like the Rush Limbaughs or Al Frankens of the Linux world), it seems you spend more time with -emerge or recompiling the latest packages, instead of just using your computers. If that's what you want, cool. I like to have my OS just give me the shit I want - web browser, MP3 playback, IM, an editor or two, RDP into my Windows servers, ssh to my Unix/Linux clients, stuff like that. Right now, BeatrIX Linux does that for me. Not all apt users are Debian users.:) I've used Red Hat, Debian, Slack, Knoppix, Mandrake, SuSE (whatever the cap is), and I'm currently running BeatrIX Linux.
Whichever Linux you use, good for you. If you like it, you like it.
Re:If you need to Kompile it yourself...
on
KDE 3.4 goes Beta
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Conversely, I can 'sudo apt-get install' the kde desktop environment, wait 10 minutes, restart my X session, and have a complete new working environment. Sure, it's probably 5% slower, but I'll take the small performance hit for NOT WASTING MY LIFE.
Keep making it hard, and Linux will never move past Linus' hypothetical basement.
Synaptic, Click-n-Run, stuff like that is what will keep people interested in Linux and other OSS avenues. Not watching random text scroll in a window to make me feel like a 'geek'.
But how do you know that the wiki is accurate or factual? Do you have a reference copy of the original text to compare to? The abstract presented here represents the author(s) understanding of the material. Do they actually understand it correctly, as Dante intended it? Or are they just posting their best understanding of it?
These are the inherent problems with wikis - that, and the damn name. You can't trust something that can be edited by nearly anyone. If you get someone smart enough, they can/could edit the article to put their own spin on it. Why? Why do people deface websites, etc.? Because they can, or for personal amusement, or just to make sure their beliefs - the "RIGHT" ones - are presented./still waiting to see some mechanism for credibility on wikis and other shared media sources
So let me get this straight - you're going to charge a guy with a laser pointer with the same crime as someone who ran another person over with a car in anger?
<sarcasm>Yup, that seems reasonable.</sarcasm>
Attempted second degree murder?!?! It's attitudes like this that are _why_ our traitorous politicians haven't been ousted. You're their constituency.
Wrong. Microsoft DOES care about application compatibility and a company's ability to do business. You wouldn't let a perfectly good revenue stream dry up if you could do something to prevent it. If $giantcompany_app doesn't work on Windows XP or Windows Server 2003, then $giantcompany won't be excited about purchasing Windows XP.
"Just rewrite," you say? Thanks, we'll just stick with Win98 and our app, then. In reality, if MS doesn't keep up with application compatibility, they're likely to be perceived as 'behind the curve' with respect to 'new technology'. This is the area that Oracle, the various Linux vendors (IBM), and other players would love to get in - and MS will fight hard to keep them out of it.
Once you're out of high school, perhaps then you can get an internship with a company that actually uses computers to do business.:)
Because most people just want to *use* the computer. They play games they download off zone.com, shockwave, etc. They compose email to family members with smileys, pictures, and sounds - it lets them be more entertaining than just straight text. They want to listen to their CDs, MP3s, watch DVDs, and play Ghost Recon 2 from time to time.
The converse: Have WinXP SP2 installed for use only as a gaming system. Build a hardware profile that disables the network card. Tell your wife[1] that Windows is for games ONLY. Then when she wants to use the 'net, she has to log out and reboot the machine. She logs into $DISTRO[2], and then can use Mozilla to surf the web - oops, sorry, most of your flash games don't work, sorry honey. Oh, no, you can't install your games there; you'll need to reboot into Windows for that. Sorry, no online Age of Empires II. No, you can't play UT2004 online, either, sorry love.[3]
Blah. See where this is going?:) Personally, I support Microsoft products day-in/day-out. Are there things that would do a better job? Sure there are. Without a doubt. HOWEVER - Linux is NOT ready for the desktop. Until it can 100% replace Windows - seamlessly - it won't work. Most people will not accept something that 'kinda works the same way' - hence why people have Windows machines at work and home, and not Macs at home. (For the most part). Over 90% of the Windows-related problems are lack of updates, lack of virus software, and the lack of a good firewall solution. Linux doesn't need these,you say? Wrong. Linux's permissions model and isolated users is much better than Windows', I'll agree with you, but the firewall is ON by default now in most distros. As it is with Windows XP SP2. Yeah, Windows 95/98/NT/2000 are more vulnerable. Would you put an unpatched Red Hat 5.2 box on the 'net? Hell no. You'd patch it, upgrade it, etc. Same with Windows, just much less expensive in initial outlay of cash.
If you're going to take the time to educate someone on how to use Linux, then take that same time to educate them in general on 'safe computer use when you're part of the online community'. Or something like that.
Best Regards, and a very Merry Christmas!
[1] My wife is a very bright, very computer-savvy accountant. She's a typical 'power user' - not MCP or A+ or a MOUS, but she's pretty damn smart.
[2] The distro wars are also a huge holdup for Linux. There's one Windows, one Macintosh -- many people are scared off by the multitude of flavors. C'mon Linux Standards Base! Everyone get behind this, and make the user experience the priority!
[3] And she's good, too. Gotta love a woman with the rocket launcher!
Hmmm. I think perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I'm not asking anyone to pay for someone else's content. The original discourse was in relation to the transmittal of 'banned ideas' over a medium that the original poster didn't agree with.
The point I attempted to make is that you cannot avoid some distateful uses of any private system. There will always be cruft and detritous that will need to be dealt with.
Perhaps I didn't understand the original poster's viewpoint. I'll print it and attempt to better see his viewpoint, instead of a coarse "fuck you" like he threw at me.
Very possibly we do have different views. My (attempted) point was that even among the hue and cry for 'free speech', we immediately start putting restrictions on it. There are aspects of free speech that are definitely distateful to some, but you must take the good with the bad, I feel.
Thanks for the well-spoken response.
Nice comeback. I appreciate your good cheer and fellowship during the Christmas season.
You keep contradicting yourself, actually - you want to spread ideas, but won't support it. Actually, these are the same ideals the Internet *used* to be founded on.
And, yeah, bucko, I *do* "get it" -- I'm not advocating kiddie porn. Fool.
What defines a banned idea, to use your useless phrase? You can't ban an idea. You can limit its distribution. So again, what DEFINES an "banned idea"? Falun Gong? Snuff Films? Speech against a government that a segment finds oppressive? You're starting on the same slope as the regular Internet.
Anyway - have a Merry Christmas, and I hope your New Year finds you less confrontational!
Just because I care about civil liberties doesn't mean I have to personally assist people who are doing repugnant things. I can support the right for people to share movies without wanting to personally pay for the bandwidth to allow them to do this. I am however interested in donating a bit of bandwidth and an IP address for people transmitting banned ideas.
Actually, if you are a TRUE "civil libertarian", you shouldn't care. As Voltaire said, and I paraphrase here, "I may not like what you say, but I'll support unto my death your right to say it."
Ideally, in a truly anonymous system, you DON'T KNOW what traffic is routing through your system. Just as your neighbor can't hear your conversations at the dinner table, you can't hear his.
Kiddie Porn has become the favorite whipping boy (no pun intended) to block adoption of 'anonymizing' services. That, and the 'terra-ists' "they" keep screaming about.
Anything that helps with truly free speech and the transfer of new and radical ideas help to keep new ideas flowing. Your comments are strange - you want people to share (supposedly) copyrighted movies without fear of punishment, but you don't expect them to pay for the bandwidth - which is essentially the underlying delivery method which lets them share the movies. I assume your second line should read "I am, however, NOT interested in donating... banned ideas." Whose ideas? Who banned them? Your second paragraph is an excellent example:
think Chinese people should be able to download porn, but their government restricts their access for whatever reason. While I support this right, I don't want to personally fund bringing porn to China. Donating bandwidth on my server is a real cost to me, and I would like to be able to help out Chinese dissidents (and others) trying to read and disseminate information that their government is trying to censor.
Uh, what? So you'll leave the 'burden' of bringing Approved-By-You Porn to China, but don't want to pay for it? OK, fine. but... why is it up to YOU to decide that it's OK for China to have porn? It seems to be ok for you to decide kiddie porn is bad (and I'm not debating THAT particular point), but why do YOU get to dictate what is and isn't right?
If the "GIMP" had a different name and a much much much better interface, perhaps more attention would be paid to it?
Seriously, how do you tell your PHB you're using "The Gimp" in your efforts? They'll shit over the possible HR violations.
How about "Open Source ImageShop Suite"? Catchy, yet flashy.:)
Likely, they added the Exchange IMF (Intelligent Mail Filter) on the SMTP connector. That, or they tightened up the UCE rules on an existing Exchange IMF.
I took over a state-government Exchange server that was seeing a pretty heavy volume of spam. Installed and configured IMF, and the volume dropped drastically. I didn't use the most restrictive settings, but I'm catching now 5000-7000 spams/day with IMF. Users haven't complained, either. If Uncle Joe can't send his joke, they're apparently not complaining much.
Perhaps, then, I wish to be naive. I'm not saying that root and vendors never meet - I'm just saying that there should - and in many cases - is a better way to do things.
What if the problem is caused by bogosity in a config file that only root can read?
Then it's written wrong. I want the config files to have permissions for a user named $vendor.
What if the logs produced by the application are only readable by root (or by adm)?
Then it's written wrong. I want the log files written to a location for a user named $vendor.
What if the process is running with root privileges and you need to trace/truss it to perform the diagnose it?
Then it's written wrong. I want the application to run in a chroot or jailed environment limited $vendor and $vendorapp.
There is *no* good reason for a vendor app to run as root/superuser/Administrator. It's poor coding, and poor design. If that's the best your 'cheaper' vendor can do, you'll end up paying more in the long run for support, security problems, and related issues. It's too easy "since you're root" to just change file permissions to make your app 'just work', instead of correcting the application to work within the system constraints.
Slashdot Mirror
You "won't debate"? How unsurprising.
That you're a middle manager doesn't surprise me, actually. Your attitude of casually dismissing a differing viewpoint and approach shows that more clearly than your claim to that title ever could. Is it easier to just blame big bad Microsoft instead of your own inexperience or ineptitude?
Read the fine print, dude. It comes shipped with no OS.
Because it's yet again another program or service to manage. Active Directory is integrated, nearly all of the Office suite is AD aware, and Windows 2000/XP/2003 are natively AD aware?
... which probably isn't the most unbiased resource. :)
I supported Novell 4.11 and the abortion that was ZENWorks. If you have complaints about Windows speed and usability, the Novell client and anything Novell made the machines slow, unreliable, and difficult to use.
I'll admit, I'll go look at 'eDirectory' (Goddammit with the e- and i- prefixes), but all of your links are to Novell
Google is your friend ...
p ?i d=937198&bin_id=world
http://www.retrobox.com/rbwww/home/unit_view.as
Seriously. This is just a way for Wal-Mart to eliminate more competition - Dell, Gateway, HP, et. al, and 'embrace and extend' another market.
Wal-Mart isn't saving you money. Spend a little more and buy a used Powerbook, or a stripped-down Dell.
The less people that shop and buy at Wal-Mart, the better off this whole country will be.
A.) Sysprep or RIS. Learn it, love it.
B.) Admin rights for applications: Fallacy. You can grant pseudo-admin rights to certain directories or applications via group policy or security policies (Adobe springs right to mind) if necessary. This is *not* a fault of the Windows OS security model inasmuch as it's a failure of the application requiring permissions to an entire folder or registry key.
C.) "Each requires different drivers" - and Linux doesn't?! Seriously. Windows is actually usually far more forgiving about fucked up hardware - it will either fail to safe mode, or disable the hardware.
"We use the same image for 345s that we use with 445s - no sweat." Uhhhh, but you're bitching that Windows wants the proper drivers for the hardware? So you're OK with "close enough" on your blades, eh? I would suspect your higher-ups would like to know that their machines are being loaded properly with the correct drivers for the hardware they're installed on, in order to make sure they're the most stable, most reliable machines they can be.
I love Linux, use Linux daily, but also admin Windows machines. Use the right tools for the job, and learn a bit more about how to propery install and configure your machines, dude.
Based on Ubuntu, I strongly recommend you check it out - at about a 200MB ISO, it will fit on a flash drive. The LiveCD is great, and it works with all the Ubuntu repositories if you install it to the HDD.
http://www.watsky.net
I *love* BeatrIX. It runs great on old hardware, has the right set of starter apps for Mom, and can be tweaked to your liking as you wish.
It's spelled Microsoft, or MS if you're abbreviating. The 12-year old "M$" makes you look stupid. Microsoft DOES own the groupware arena - Lotus Notes/Domino has a ways to go.
... sigh. What potential, what a fucking nightmare to implement and keep running cleanly. Not that Exchange is a cakewalk - each have their foibles. Notes/Domino "wins", however, for having the worst UI design, and unconventional keybindings (F9 to refresh?!). The THREE clients - Notes, Notes Developer, and Domino Administrator (yes, I'm aware they use the same framework) - all share the same bloat and unfriendliness.
Obviously, you have not seen even used a 'true groupware.'
Yup, sure have. Was a Notes/Domino administrator for some years, actually. Give me a Linux client for Domino, then. No, no, iNotes doesn't count. I want a full client that does everything the Windows fat client does.
Domino
Exchange has become the defacto standard. Most Domino organizations don't use the groupware features beyond resource & calendar sharing. I've seen very few use Domino.doc or SameTime.
If Lotus/IBM could build a better interface - basically, start over - it would be great. Perhaps they could include Notes support in the Windows port of Evolution, which could then be ported back to the Linux side...
The Notes client runs very well under Wine, WineX, or any other variant ... even with custom code.
Give it a shot.
Your overly defensive and sarcastic post notwithstanding...
:) I've used Red Hat, Debian, Slack, Knoppix, Mandrake, SuSE (whatever the cap is), and I'm currently running BeatrIX Linux.
I'm glad you like Gentoo. I personally don't give much of a damn about it. My comment was more about Linux being user friendly, and not about the nuts and bolts.
Multitasking is fine; if that's what you're into. From all the rabid Gentoo users (and you guys are fanatical - you're like the Rush Limbaughs or Al Frankens of the Linux world), it seems you spend more time with -emerge or recompiling the latest packages, instead of just using your computers. If that's what you want, cool. I like to have my OS just give me the shit I want - web browser, MP3 playback, IM, an editor or two, RDP into my Windows servers, ssh to my Unix/Linux clients, stuff like that. Right now, BeatrIX Linux does that for me. Not all apt users are Debian users.
Whichever Linux you use, good for you. If you like it, you like it.
Conversely, I can 'sudo apt-get install' the kde desktop environment, wait 10 minutes, restart my X session, and have a complete new working environment. Sure, it's probably 5% slower, but I'll take the small performance hit for NOT WASTING MY LIFE.
Keep making it hard, and Linux will never move past Linus' hypothetical basement.
Synaptic, Click-n-Run, stuff like that is what will keep people interested in Linux and other OSS avenues. Not watching random text scroll in a window to make me feel like a 'geek'.
But how do you know that the wiki is accurate or factual? Do you have a reference copy of the original text to compare to? The abstract presented here represents the author(s) understanding of the material. Do they actually understand it correctly, as Dante intended it? Or are they just posting their best understanding of it?
/still waiting to see some mechanism for credibility on wikis and other shared media sources
These are the inherent problems with wikis - that, and the damn name. You can't trust something that can be edited by nearly anyone. If you get someone smart enough, they can/could edit the article to put their own spin on it. Why? Why do people deface websites, etc.? Because they can, or for personal amusement, or just to make sure their beliefs - the "RIGHT" ones - are presented.
So let me get this straight - you're going to charge a guy with a laser pointer with the same crime as someone who ran another person over with a car in anger?
<sarcasm>Yup, that seems reasonable.</sarcasm>
Attempted second degree murder?!?! It's attitudes like this that are _why_ our traitorous politicians haven't been ousted. You're their constituency.
"Just rewrite," you say? Thanks, we'll just stick with Win98 and our app, then. In reality, if MS doesn't keep up with application compatibility, they're likely to be perceived as 'behind the curve' with respect to 'new technology'. This is the area that Oracle, the various Linux vendors (IBM), and other players would love to get in - and MS will fight hard to keep them out of it.
Once you're out of high school, perhaps then you can get an internship with a company that actually uses computers to do business. :)
The converse: Have WinXP SP2 installed for use only as a gaming system. Build a hardware profile that disables the network card. Tell your wife[1] that Windows is for games ONLY. Then when she wants to use the 'net, she has to log out and reboot the machine. She logs into $DISTRO[2], and then can use Mozilla to surf the web - oops, sorry, most of your flash games don't work, sorry honey. Oh, no, you can't install your games there; you'll need to reboot into Windows for that. Sorry, no online Age of Empires II. No, you can't play UT2004 online, either, sorry love.[3]
Blah. See where this is going? :) Personally, I support Microsoft products day-in/day-out. Are there things that would do a better job? Sure there are. Without a doubt. HOWEVER - Linux is NOT ready for the desktop. Until it can 100% replace Windows - seamlessly - it won't work. Most people will not accept something that 'kinda works the same way' - hence why people have Windows machines at work and home, and not Macs at home. (For the most part). Over 90% of the Windows-related problems are lack of updates, lack of virus software, and the lack of a good firewall solution. Linux doesn't need these,you say? Wrong. Linux's permissions model and isolated users is much better than Windows', I'll agree with you, but the firewall is ON by default now in most distros. As it is with Windows XP SP2. Yeah, Windows 95/98/NT/2000 are more vulnerable. Would you put an unpatched Red Hat 5.2 box on the 'net? Hell no. You'd patch it, upgrade it, etc. Same with Windows, just much less expensive in initial outlay of cash.
If you're going to take the time to educate someone on how to use Linux, then take that same time to educate them in general on 'safe computer use when you're part of the online community'. Or something like that.
Best Regards, and a very Merry Christmas!
[1] My wife is a very bright, very computer-savvy accountant. She's a typical 'power user' - not MCP or A+ or a MOUS, but she's pretty damn smart.
[2] The distro wars are also a huge holdup for Linux. There's one Windows, one Macintosh -- many people are scared off by the multitude of flavors. C'mon Linux Standards Base! Everyone get behind this, and make the user experience the priority!
[3] And she's good, too. Gotta love a woman with the rocket launcher!
The point I attempted to make is that you cannot avoid some distateful uses of any private system. There will always be cruft and detritous that will need to be dealt with.
Perhaps I didn't understand the original poster's viewpoint. I'll print it and attempt to better see his viewpoint, instead of a coarse "fuck you" like he threw at me.
Merry Christmas!
Very possibly we do have different views. My (attempted) point was that even among the hue and cry for 'free speech', we immediately start putting restrictions on it. There are aspects of free speech that are definitely distateful to some, but you must take the good with the bad, I feel. Thanks for the well-spoken response.
You keep contradicting yourself, actually - you want to spread ideas, but won't support it. Actually, these are the same ideals the Internet *used* to be founded on.
And, yeah, bucko, I *do* "get it" -- I'm not advocating kiddie porn. Fool.
What defines a banned idea, to use your useless phrase? You can't ban an idea. You can limit its distribution. So again, what DEFINES an "banned idea"? Falun Gong? Snuff Films? Speech against a government that a segment finds oppressive? You're starting on the same slope as the regular Internet.
Anyway - have a Merry Christmas, and I hope your New Year finds you less confrontational!
Actually, if you are a TRUE "civil libertarian", you shouldn't care. As Voltaire said, and I paraphrase here, "I may not like what you say, but I'll support unto my death your right to say it." Ideally, in a truly anonymous system, you DON'T KNOW what traffic is routing through your system. Just as your neighbor can't hear your conversations at the dinner table, you can't hear his.
Kiddie Porn has become the favorite whipping boy (no pun intended) to block adoption of 'anonymizing' services. That, and the 'terra-ists' "they" keep screaming about.
Anything that helps with truly free speech and the transfer of new and radical ideas help to keep new ideas flowing. Your comments are strange - you want people to share (supposedly) copyrighted movies without fear of punishment, but you don't expect them to pay for the bandwidth - which is essentially the underlying delivery method which lets them share the movies. I assume your second line should read "I am, however, NOT interested in donating ... banned ideas." Whose ideas? Who banned them? Your second paragraph is an excellent example:
think Chinese people should be able to download porn, but their government restricts their access for whatever reason. While I support this right, I don't want to personally fund bringing porn to China. Donating bandwidth on my server is a real cost to me, and I would like to be able to help out Chinese dissidents (and others) trying to read and disseminate information that their government is trying to censor.
Uh, what? So you'll leave the 'burden' of bringing Approved-By-You Porn to China, but don't want to pay for it? OK, fine. but ... why is it up to YOU to decide that it's OK for China to have porn? It seems to be ok for you to decide kiddie porn is bad (and I'm not debating THAT particular point), but why do YOU get to dictate what is and isn't right?
How about "Open Source ImageShop Suite"? Catchy, yet flashy. :)
Just my $.000002.
Likely, they added the Exchange IMF (Intelligent Mail Filter) on the SMTP connector. That, or they tightened up the UCE rules on an existing Exchange IMF.
I took over a state-government Exchange server that was seeing a pretty heavy volume of spam. Installed and configured IMF, and the volume dropped drastically. I didn't use the most restrictive settings, but I'm catching now 5000-7000 spams/day with IMF. Users haven't complained, either. If Uncle Joe can't send his joke, they're apparently not complaining much.
Amen to that. Well put, and with much less fuck than I'd have used. :)
Perhaps, then, I wish to be naive. I'm not saying that root and vendors never meet - I'm just saying that there should - and in many cases - is a better way to do things.
Thanks for the education, however.
Cheers!
What's wrong with about /etc/system/vendorapp/%configfiles% ?
What if the problem is caused by bogosity in a config file that only root can read?
Then it's written wrong. I want the config files to have permissions for a user named $vendor.
What if the logs produced by the application are only readable by root (or by adm)?
Then it's written wrong. I want the log files written to a location for a user named $vendor.
What if the process is running with root privileges and you need to trace/truss it to perform the diagnose it?
Then it's written wrong. I want the application to run in a chroot or jailed environment limited $vendor and $vendorapp.
There is *no* good reason for a vendor app to run as root/superuser/Administrator. It's poor coding, and poor design. If that's the best your 'cheaper' vendor can do, you'll end up paying more in the long run for support, security problems, and related issues. It's too easy "since you're root" to just change file permissions to make your app 'just work', instead of correcting the application to work within the system constraints.