The User-Accessible Filesystem Hierarchy Standard [LWN.net]

The User-Accessible Filesystem Hierarchy Standard

Posted Apr 8, 2004 13:08 UTC (Thu) by ordonnateur (subscriber, #6652)
Parent article: The User-Accessible Filesystem Hierarchy Standard

As a system admin I really don't want users installing programs anywhere.
In practice nobody gets to touch the server but me, (except web pages in home directories - and that potential trouble enough).
As for the desktop, there are two catagories of user: those who know nothing, and will simply use what they have been given, and those for whom a little illusion of knowledge is a dangerous thing. The first group are not a problem, if things don't work for them then it is rightly my problem to fix.

The over-confident second group are the problem, and as has already been said , following standards is precisely what they wont do. So either there is a constant need to lock things down, and detect and prevent work-arounds, or accept it will happen and seek to sandbox the potential damage.
I find OSX seems to do something acceptable in this regard. Applications come in a readily identifiable package that stays in one bundle rather than scattering libraries and files all over the place.
Pehaps the cost is to have more application packages as static builds with no, or at least minimal, dependecies. The cost might be in terms of disk space and efficiency but desktops these days are ridiculously over specified for any sort of standard business use.

(Log in to post comments)

Users shouldn't install software?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 16:18 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

As a system admin I really don't want users installing programs anywhere.

There are two models of the computer-user relationship. In one, the computer (along with its administrator) and the user are two cogs in a machine owned by someone else (an employer, probably). They are peers and there's no reason to expect the user to have any control over the computer.

In the other, the computer is a tool of the user. The owner of the computer and the system administrator are service providers to the user. In that model, there's no way to defend withholding from users the ability to install software per se.

Of course, in practice it's usually a nebulous combination of the two, leading to endless arguments.

Users shouldn't install software?

Posted Apr 8, 2004 18:53 UTC (Thu) by ordonnateur (subscriber, #6652) [Link]

Yes, that was the promise of 'personal computing': no need for a data centre and all those spoilsport admins, just go out and by the box and DIY.
And so long as it was just a glorified typewriter there wasn't much trouble with that. It saved the admin from a lot of trivia, it kept the end user happy. It was even, you might say, an advantage, when the users came cap in hand to the experts to fix thier spreadsheets and macros and bits of BASIC: teach them it's not as easy as they think.

But then came networks of document processors, and the spreadsheets started to look like the company accounts, and the order process on a db held together with string and sealing wax, not to mention email and all. The isolated PC is no longer isolated, and the users who do most damage are the ones with computing power in excess of thier aptitude and inclination to master it.
I can't do much about people who wilfully use a computer badly, other than protect my patch with defensive walls, but I do think it is a responsibility of distributors, developers, and sytem managers to think about the implications of a world of ignorant users. Dangerous machinery needs to have guards and covers over the moving parts, because anyone can slip sometimes, and many people are simply careless.