Norton Go Home! We don't want you!

[Tim Tsai]

In article <455 at bria>:
>In an article, ra.MsState.Edu!it1 (Tim Tsai) writes:
>|In article <433 at bria>:
>||In an article, ms.uky.edu!kherron (Kenneth Herron) writes:
[lines deleted]
>||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.

>And most of these workstations with be networked, and have a central
>authority.

  I wouldn't say most..  Perhaps in large companies and educational
  institutions.  I won't argue further on this though.

>||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.

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

>Computer proficient users can do whatever they like, permissions not with-
>standing.  However, the thrust of tool development is, and should be, the
>computer professional.

  Hmmm, so you are saying that Norton Utilities weren't developed by
  computer professionals??  I don't think we're on the same wavelength
  here.

>||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.

>|  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?

>Yes, you do have to start somewhere.  My point was that too many UNIX
>"professionals" are not learning the _innards_ of the operating system.
>They are using scripts and such (that were designed to make routine jobs
>a bit easier) as a _crutch_.  And yes, a sysadmin that relies on 'vi' and
>has no idea how to use 'ed' is NOT worth a dime.  Know why?  Sometime, he's
>gonna run into a situation where his /usr filesystem got hosed, or the
>/etc/termcap got chunked.  If something like that stops a sysadmin, then
>yep, he's worthless as a plug nickel.

  So what does all this have to do with Norton Utilities?  Is ed the
  _innards_ of the operating system?  A sysadmin should be able to adapt
  to a situation, instead of knowing a few set-procedures well.  I think
  a sysadmin should be able to *FIGURE* out how to use ed with the
  proper documentation.  Some of us also believe in making backups of
  some of the more useful utilities in case of system crashes. (speaking
  from the DOS world.  I'm not an unix sysadmin, and as a matter of
  fact, a lowly undergrad.  Does this automatically disqualify me from
  speaking here?? :)

[lines deleted]

>|  How does installing a package make things any more difficult for you?

>It depends.  Since Norton attaches itself, virus-like, to my kernel, and
>induces the kernel to lie to me about the true state of affairs on the
>system, I would count this as a hinderance.

  Virus-like?  I don't think so..  We all use these "viruses" in
  day to day operation..  You may send me e.mail via it1 at msstate.edu,
  but somewhere along the path, that address gets translated to
  it1 at ra.msstate.edu..  There, my system just lied about my true
  address.  What's my point??  If the operation is *COMPLETELY*
  transparent to the users and the sysadmins, then what's wrong with
  it?  I agree with your other post that this should be handled
  in the kernel, but until that is done, Norton Utilities is one of the
  better methods in handling the undelete problem.  Not everybody has the
  patience to wait for Berkeley or AT&T to finally include undeletion of
  files, and NU offers it NOW.  Yes, I am aware of freely available
  tools, but the ones I've encountered only replace the "rm" program,
  which is useless if a file was removed using system calls.

  Perhaps you dislike NU becase it came from a company that specialized
  in DOS utilities (BTW, symantec is more famous for making Macintosh
  utilities)??  If so, I don't blame you.  I don't use NU, and as a
  matter of fact dislike it, but I found your arguments questionable.

>|  I'm glad you aren't my sysadmin.
>And, oh boy am I glad you're not my end-user. :-)

  Let's just say the feelings are mutual.. (smileys for the humor impaired)

>-- 
>Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc., Los Angeles| Opinions stated are not even my own.
>Title of the week: Systems Engineer    | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Remember folks: If you can't flame MS-DOS, then what _can_ you flame?

  I'd flame Bill Gates, Microsoft, IBM, and Digital Research, in that
  order.

-- 
  I have lots of common sense.  I just choose to ignore it. <Calvin>