On Mon, 29 May 2000, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000, Warren Young wrote:
> >Khimenko Victor wrote:
> >>
> >> "If users are made to understand that the system administrator's job is to
> >> make computers run, and not to make them happy, they can, in fact, be made
> >> happy most of the time. If users are allowed to believe that the system
> >> administrator's job is to make them happy, they can, in fact, never be made
> >> happy."
> >
> >I wasn't talking about Joe Wordprocessor, I'm talking about people who
> >actually need admin tools.
> >
> >Look, why all the objection to this point? It's a simple fact: right
> >now UnixWare has better GUI admin tools than Linux. Whether they make
> >admins more productive or whether most admins need them or anything else
> >like that is _completely irrelevant_. I'm simply stating a fact. How
> >much it matters and who it matters to is a separate issue: the reader
> >brings that analysis with them, it's not for me to provide.
>
> The major problem with ALL GUI admin tools is that they assume an
> isolated environment. None of them work in all environments
>
> 1. They assume a limited number of users
> 2. They assume a limited knowledge administrator
> 3. They assume a totally inexperienced one
> 4. They do not do a complete job
>
> On every system I have used with a GUI, the GUI has failed, and I have to figure
> out what is supposed to be done to bypass the GUI.
>
> What is wrong with them?
>
> 1. My environment has had up to 1800 users. How do I add that many at one time?
> 2. How do I do remote disable of an arbitrary user where that user may have
> logins on 12 (or more) different systems
> 3. Lack of internal documentation (what the hell did it do to the system...)
> 4. Lack of functionality (how do I delegate administration...)
> 5. Lack of security (how do I control it)
>
> As long as there is a straight forward method for adding users that is:
>
> 1. Documented
> 2. command line oriented
> 3. handles bulk loading of users
> 4. handles users, groups, project (future accounting)
> 5. handles resource allocation (CPU, memory, time)
> 6. supports security in depth
> 7. may optionally handle disk quotas
>
> Then I will use it. A GUI doesn't replace the low level access, it usually
> hides it, and prevents the administrator from learning how things need to
> be done.
Pretty much my experience too; trying to create 500 user accounts with
NT's "User Manager" is NOT a viable option. I ended up creating a .BAT
file, along with NET USER and CHACL; so much for the nice friendly GUI.
That said, a convenient GUI would be nice in some circumstances. A simple
"edit user account" function for changing shells, quotas, etc. would be
nice in some cases, for example. Provided it isn't intended to replace any
of the CLI functions, I'd be OK with that.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:23 EST