>> 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 http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
