Ubuntu Domain Server

[Dotan Cohen]

> I completely disagree.  There's no theoretical reason why a computer program
> couldn't do any of the above.

We are discussing practice, not theory. In theory, there isn't any
difference between the two. But in practice...


> "Professionals" are primarily required to
> protect professionals' jobs.  In practice, computers can't actually do any
> of those jobs _yet_, though it probably wouldn't be beyond current
> capability to have them rebuild engines or provide good legal advice (at
> least in any precedent-based legal system).  I certainly believe that UIs
> can be built that can do a better job of system and network administration
> than the average person currently doing those jobs, and it really doesn't
> matter how much you, or anybody else, thinks that those jobs _should_ be
> done by professionals - it isn't going to happen.

The problem with your examples is that they assume routine work. I
agree that for 90% of what professionals do, a computer could do
better and cheaper. One has only to look at the autobuilding industry
for a classic example.

However, a professional must be present for the 10% of cases where
something goes wrong. In most (I admit not all) cases that means
having a professional available 100% of the time, so that he will be
there when things fail.


> Right or wrong, companies
> don't believe in paying professional rates for administrative work.

This is a valid viewpoint for them, as their interest is in saving
money. That does not mean that Ubuntu or any other entity needs to
give the impression that their GUI tools (which we have already
established covers 90% of use cases) cover 100% of their use cases and
no experienced professional is needed.


Just for the record, my field is mechanical engineering, not software
or server administration. I have no vested interest in keeping server
administration a closed profession. Quite the opposite, I would only
benefit from it.

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il