Ubuntu Domain Server
derek at pointerstop.ca
Tue Oct 27 14:15:04 UTC 2009
Dotan Cohen wrote:
>> 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.
I think all of the "professions" have made it pretty clear that really, you
don't have to be a member of the profession to do most of the job.
Paramedics, paralegals, paragliders ...
> 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.
Professionals need to be "on-call". In fact, for most medical treatment,
the doctor _is_ "on-call". If we could make the day-to-day administration
of servers simple and fool-proof, the small business owner might be far more
happy to consider keeping an expert on-call.
>> 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.
Why would we ever say that? It's way beyond the scope of the proposal.
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss