Ubuntu Domain Server

Dotan Cohen dotancohen at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 18:30:21 UTC 2009

>> My arguments are against making a dangerous tool accessible to the
>> masses. Assessible in this context meaning "seemingly designed for".
> I understand that - but the problem is the dangerous tool IS already
> accessible to the masses.  They can set up completely bollixed servers with
> MS tools.  So arguing that Ubuntu shouldn't even consider creating a better,
> more secure, solution isn't going to help.

Just because one circle of money-greedy idiots is willing to sacrifice
their customer's security, reputation, and business does not mean that
Ubuntu has to do the same.

> 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.

The problem is that most business will use the tool to _replace_
proper IT professionals, not to supplement them. Any solution that
relies on the end-user to be responsible is dangerous. End-users are
not responsible.

>> http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/PHP-has-an-eval-function-like-perl.aspx
> Very funny.  Now, wouldn't it have been better to give Jim some useful
> tools?

No. It would have been better to train him.

Dotan Cohen


More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list