 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
> Allowing users to modify settings and install anything usually leads to an
> unstable environment and many many IT support calls.
That's because they use the wrong OS, where users can screw up the
system by installing and changing settings...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's because they use the wrong OS, where users can screw up the
> system by installing and changing settings...
And what system lets you install applications and change settings that
*doesn't* let you screw things up? Last time I ran rpm as a normal
user, it not only didn't work, it gave a really stupid error message.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that
> *doesn't* let you screw things up?
MacOS X?
> Last time I ran rpm as a normal
> user, it not only didn't work, it gave a really stupid error message.
Most unix programs can be installed locally. If some can't, they are
stupid.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:56:44 +0100, scott wrote:
>> That was now about 10 years ago (doesn't seem possible it was that long
>> ago). But desktop lockdown and software installation policies are very
>> common in corporate IT policies these days, especially with all the
>> crapware/malware/spyware that's in the Windows world.
>
> Yep, and the policy works too. Where I used to work everyone was using
> Win95 (to start with, they slowly changed to XP when I was leaving) and
> I don't think we ever saw a blue-screen. This was because we were only
> allowed to use approved software, and IT had tested to death anything
> that was to be used on the system to make sure it was compatible with
> everything. Add to that the fact that they routinely wiped the HDs, it
> meant a very stable computing environment virtually transparent to the
> user (unless you wanted to install some application that was not in the
> list).
Oh yes, for the company I worked for before coming to Novell, we used
Novell's ZENworks for application distribution and desktop policy
management. There was a team of half a dozen engineers who would test
applications like mad to make sure the install wouldn't break something
else. Compatibility testing was a huge component of that process - will
app A break app B?
> Allowing users to modify settings and install anything usually leads to
> an unstable environment and many many IT support calls.
Yep. BTDTGTTS.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:53:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> That's because they use the wrong OS, where users can screw up the
>> system by installing and changing settings...
>
> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that
> *doesn't* let you screw things up? Last time I ran rpm as a normal
> user, it not only didn't work, it gave a really stupid error message.
"You must be root"?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:00:10 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that
>> *doesn't* let you screw things up?
>
> MacOS X?
Bwah! Yeah, riiiight.
It is impossible to make something foolproof because fools are so
ingenious...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Allowing users to modify settings and install anything usually leads to
>> an
>> unstable environment and many many IT support calls.
>
> That's because they use the wrong OS, where users can screw up the
> system by installing and changing settings...
All modern desktop OSs can be configured to stop users changing settings
etc, can't they? Even Win95 allowed this which seemed to work very
successfully in my previous company, where 10's thousands of people were
using it.
But yes, if your OS doesn't allow this, then you are certainly using the
wrong OS in your business.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, you must have some serious amounts of RAM to play with is all I can
> say... ;-)
I think the problem here is that you have a seriously *limited* amount of
RAM to play with compared to what most other people have :-p And you try to
run programs that are not designed to run on 5-year-old hardware, then
complain when they use too much RAM...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that
>> *doesn't* let you screw things up?
>
> MacOS X?
OK, fair enough. Altho I'd be surprised if you could install
applications without screwing up your system. See the new Mac OsX trojan
floating around.
> Most unix programs can be installed locally. If some can't, they are
> stupid.
I don't know how to do this from an RPM.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:53:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Warp wrote:
>>> That's because they use the wrong OS, where users can screw up the
>>> system by installing and changing settings...
>> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that
>> *doesn't* let you screw things up? Last time I ran rpm as a normal
>> user, it not only didn't work, it gave a really stupid error message.
>
> "You must be root"?
No, actually. Something like "could not aquire package directory lock".
If it said "you must be root" I wouldn't have had to try several times
and wander around looking for where said lock might be in order to
install the software.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
