Re: [tlug] Networking two Linux computers harder than Linux toWindows?

["Arwyn Hainsworth" <arwynh@example.com>]

On 16/04/07, Godwin Stewart <godwin.stewart@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:48:42 +0900, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
> <stephen@example.com> wrote:
>
> > My point is that in today's environment Dave's expectation that when
> > he installs software it will "just work" is quite understandable.
>
> There is, I think, a big difference between desktop software like a
> media player, graphics package or mail client, and server software like
> a webserver or a DB server. That the former category "just works" seems
> perfectly normal to me. Not the latter, which caters to a totally
> different user base because it has a totally different function.
> Desktop software, if net-aware, initiates network connections to the
> outside in order to pull down or send data to a remote host. Server
> software sits there listening for connections from the outside world,
> meaning that some services need to be exposed. As you know full well,
> it's a zoo out there. Whoever is managing the server has to be mindful
> of that and do whatever s/he can to protect the server from attack. That
> takes knowledge, experience and information channels that the average
> desktop user probably doesn't have or even know about in the first
> place.
>
> So, desktop software like gkrellm, for example, that starts as soon as
> installed? No problem, no harm done if the configuration isn't how I
> like it.
>
> Stuff like MySQL and Apache starting by itself - even if they're behind
> a firewall, they're still *meant* to be exposed to the 'Net, although
> that's debatable for MySQL, which should only be accessible to the
> machine running the front-end - is, I agree 110% with you, a serious
> bug.
>
> > You have enough work to do to demonstrate that it's reasonable for a
> > non-BOFH-geek to go through the effort of setting up and starting
> > daemons and learning about their configuration.
>
> The non-BOFH-geek ought to go at least part of the way towards becoming
> a BOFH-geek if s/he wants to start mucking about with server software,
> and learning how to start daemons manually and configure them is a
> necessary part of that process. Using package managers and glitzy
> point'n'drool wizards while you're learning is fine as long as the
> server you're administrating that way is nowhere near a public network
> (you're never going to learn to ride a bike properly until you take
> those stabilizers off, right?) but cannot replace getting your hands
> dirty, delving into those config files and generally trying to
> understand at least the basics of what's under the hood.
>
> Maybe I'm just part of a nearly-extinct species: I don't *want* to run
> software blindly.

Interesting choice of words there. You realise why something goes
extinct don't you? It's because it fails to adapt to a change in it's
environment. Either by failing to evolve defences against new threats
or by simply being less efficient when compared with new competitors.
If you think your way of doing things is going extinct you should sit
down and figure out what is wrong with it instead of complaining about
it.

That said I'd disagree with you that not wanting to run software
blindly is going extinct. Any decent admin keeps track of what he has
installed on the system and what he has running on it. Good admins
will also use whatever tools available to increase the efficiency of
their work. A package manager is one such tool. In fact I'd go as far
as to say that admins that do not use a package manager when possible
are incompetent and should hurry up and go extinct. Having said that,
I'd like to point out that using a package manager to keep track of
your system and blindly installing packages from a repository are 2
very different things, which you seem to be equating.

As for GUI config programs, they too have their uses. There are times
when using a GUI to configure something is more efficient than doing
it via the text-file configs. Good admins know what to use and when to
use it.

Arwyn