shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (11/18/89)
Somewhere in the discussion of the sci.aquaria vote, someone wrote
that Usenet is a computer network, in the context that computer system
administrators should be the final judges on all issues.
I disagree with this for two reasons.
First, I don't think that Usenet is a _computer_ network; rather it's a
communication network, implemented on computers.
Usenet isn't a community composed exclusively of computer people any
more. There are more and more people on it that don't subscribe to
comp.anything.
I'm one of these people. I do get comp.text and comp.risks, but I
spend most of my time in sci.aeronautics and sci.military, with a
digression into rec.food.cooking at lunch. I do have computer
credentials--I wrote my first program in FORTRAN on the IBM 7094/7044
DCS in 1966, I've written assembler code on the XDS 9300, I took a
class from "The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I" (Knuth) when it
was still in typescript, I've written self-modifying code, and so on.
Sometimes I miss assigned gotos and punched cards.
To me, however, the computer is just a tool, like the telephone, the
fax, the copier.
This leads into my second reason for disagreeing, the nature of the
system administrator's job. The system administrator isn't the person
to formulate policy.
We users don't want to be told that our system administrator knows
best what we should read or do or use. Our system administrators are
here to make the computer work for us, not to control what we do on
it. Support, not policy. Maybe a system administrator doesn't like
FORTRAN77, but if that's what the users want, the system had better
have FORTRAN77.
When I see system administrators saying "Not on _my_ system, you don't"
I can only ask "Whose system?"
If the computer is the end-all and be-all of the organization, than
maybe it is your system. But if it's a tool used by others to produce
the end product of the organization, then you're wrong, it's not
_your_ system, it's _our_ system, and our voices will be heard.
I'm not saying that the system administrator is the user's servant,
but the administrator isn't the user's master, either. We're all in
this together. Both groups want the best system we can have and we
work together to reach that goal. But the system isn't the end product,
whatever we use the system to produce is.
I don't think that some of you system administrators feel this way.
Rather, I think that some of you wish the users would just go away and
quit messing up your lovely systems. The nerve of some people!
Wanting to use the computer for something other than hacking!
--
Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASAgary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (11/21/89)
In article <SHAFER.89Nov17113759@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov>, shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: > administrators should be the final judges on all issues. Admins who don't talk to their users about things generally don't remain admins very long. However, admins don't do everything their users want, either, for many reasons. [ ..philosophy of usenet deleted.. ] > [....] The system administrator isn't the person > to formulate policy. Wrong. We DO formulate policy, about lots of things. Like how much drive space will be used for non-work-related things, like news. > ... Support, not policy. Maybe a system administrator doesn't like > FORTRAN77, but if that's what the users want, the system had better > have FORTRAN77. Assuming it's available for the machine, and management wants things written in FORTRAN77. You may want F77, but management may want you to write Ada so you can work on government contracts. > When I see system administrators saying "Not on _my_ system, you don't" > I can only ask "Whose system?" Mine. I'm responsible for seeing to it that these systems (I have nine multiuser Unix machines to care for) are up and running FOR WORK USE to begin with. Things like what one user wants to read from usenet have a much lower priority. If you want a alt.drugs.buy_and_sell newsgroup, you may rest assured I'd say "Not on _my_ system". As much as you want it, you won't get the root password, either. > If the computer is the end-all and be-all of the organization, than > maybe it is your system. But if it's a tool used by others to produce > the end product of the organization, then you're wrong, it's not > _your_ system, it's _our_ system, and our voices will be heard. It's my JOB to keep these systems running for the benefit of OUR EMPLOYER, not the users' whims. I keep the tool sharp, and I'll come down hard on anyone who nicks the edge intentionally or through carlessness ("I heard rm * would wipe out all my files, and I wanted to see if it was true. I need my presentation files in 10 minutes. fix it." "Your presentation will be late.") > I'm not saying that the system administrator is the user's servant, > but the administrator isn't the user's master, either. We're all in > this together. Both groups want the best system we can have and we > work together to reach that goal. But the system isn't the end product, > whatever we use the system to produce is. You got that second sentence right. Unfortunantly, I doubt that many users' view of "best system" coincides with the admins' view. Users want unlimited resources, top priority, and instant response when something fouls up. Incidentally, at least half the problems I fix are directly the result of users screwing up. Some are hardware design defects, and some are my fault. Sometimes, I'm at another building working on the CEOs' system, so I wasn't here to unlock their port. > I don't think that some of you system administrators feel this way. > Rather, I think that some of you wish the users would just go away and > quit messing up your lovely systems. The nerve of some people! > Wanting to use the computer for something other than hacking! I have users that mess up systems. I have some that are no problem at all. I wish that most of them would learn something about the limits of an operating system before they get irate when I tell them I can't do something for them in five minutes. Restoring a directory, for example. I like to see everyone busily doing useful work with a system I maintain. I don't like to see them sitting around because one of the machines is down after someone hit the reset switch, or jammed a tape cart in upside-down and is complaining about not being able to get their $20 cart out of my $1500 drive. My job is to keep the systems running for the users to work (note: work, as in what they're paid to do) on. If that means blocking a newsgroup that someone wants to spend all morning reading, that is part of my job--it might also save theirs. > Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer > NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA > Of course I don't speak for NASA -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.