Ditto

Post #179,003 by admin 10/12/04 10:04:26 PM Reply	Ditto Our sysadmin is as true-blue Solaris as they come. Linux ain't gonna happen as far as he's concerned; FreeBSD only because the network guys sneak it in and ask forgiveness later. Intel/AMD in the data center? Yeah, right. Our boxes have vim, xemacs, and bash installed on them (the latter two at my request -- no problem). Ross' sysadmins are clueless (and rare, in my experience). Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #179,008 by deSitter 10/12/04 10:33:17 PM Reply	And the largest place you've worked is? Note that I didn't say they were right, or that they meant what they said. What I said was, they repeated the corporate policy, which is to keep the box as simple as possible in the context of the problem for which it is directed. I'd like to have vim, sure, but I can live with vi. -drl
Post #179,010 by admin 10/12/04 11:00:15 PM Reply	What does that have to do with anything? I work in the financial industry. Typically very conservative with their machines. The largest place I've ever worked was one of the big 6 accounting firms (back when there still were 6). Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #179,023 by deSitter 10/12/04 11:37:01 PM Reply	Everything Policy at large corporate sites is designed to avoid lawsuits and pissed off gigantic customers (think WalMart). It often has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with appearence, appeasement, imagined stability, and accountability (no one really wants it). Upper middle management rules by fiat, but not autocratically, rather in the way that most ensures a covered ass. Like it or not, that is the target if you want to see Linux thrive. Once the gigantocorps bless it, it's home free in small to medium business as well. -drl
Post #179,025 by admin 10/12/04 11:41:24 PM Reply	Wrong. Apparently you've never worked in the financial industry. Companies big AND small in this industry have exactly the same behavior. Size has nothing to do with it. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #179,027 by deSitter 10/12/04 11:42:35 PM Reply	Do banks count? No? -drl
Post #179,028 by admin 10/12/04 11:43:31 PM Reply	Do you have a point? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #179,029 by bepatient 10/12/04 11:44:00 PM Reply	What? They run the tightest IT shops in industry from policy and licensing pov. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #179,030 by deSitter 10/12/04 11:45:26 PM Reply	Exactly admin: "Apparently you've never worked in the financial industry." I suppose credit card distribution and administration also would go under the heading "financial industry", am I right? -drl
Post #179,033 by admin 10/12/04 11:51:50 PM Reply	Er, duh? My point was that you don't have to be a BIG company to have a tight IT policy, which is what you intimated with your assertion that I had never worked in a big shop. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #179,034 by deSitter 10/12/04 11:58:35 PM Reply	Re: Er, duh? My point was that IT policy in a large corporation is almost incidental to the culture of upward managerial mobility, which requires a covered ass at all times. Despite all the strict rules, I've seen the very same thing in the financial industry. The best boss I ever had was a former VP of Colorado Nat'l Bank (30 yrs there), who was locked in a stupid, withering political struggle against the P and his hatstand Windows minions. Tight mandated policy or no, corporate behavior often devolves to foreskin. -drl
Post #179,080 by folkert 10/13/04 11:07:28 AM Reply	How about Morgan Stanley? Do they count as "Big Firm"? Most of this shamelessly stolen from: [link\|http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7730\|We're Going to Be a 90% Linux Shop] at the Linux Journal. Phil Moore of Morgan Stanley, the Executive Director of the Engineering Team, recently began a talk this way: I work for the 38th-largest company in the world, Morgan Stanley. We have a billion-dollar IT budget. And we use a little of everything. Unfortunately. Excuse me, a LOT of everything. The trend I've seen in the last ten years...is the exponential growth in the variety and the depth and breadth of installation of open-source software in our infrastructure....What I'm seeing is that in the infrastructure, the core infrastructure, open source is going to take over, leaps and bounds....I'm predicting, right now, that by 2006 or 2007, we're going to be a 90% Linux shop. Further into his talk he made some comments about Microsoft (and other foreign companies) and what it will be like ten years from now: Look overseas at what's happening [with Linux]. It doesn't matter what distribution. Because [Linux is] economical for people in foreign countries. It lets them invest in their own local software companies without putting money into these guys' pockets [indicates Microsoft] or some other foreign corporation that doesn't have a vested interest in your own economy and your own culture. That's going to be the number one reason why open source ends up taking over the planet. Read that Article, it'll help you understand you own issue. Point your PHBs to the Link, to the HP stuff for Debian, for other HP sanctioned products. Especially point out the part that says: Juxtapose any-with-any on few-to-many, and you can see the cross-purposed result. It's easy to see how this presents a problem, not only for software giants such as Microsoft but for few-to-many empires including the entertainment industry and consumer electronics. Protecting few-to-many from any-with-any has become a cause for the whole entertainment industry. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, lobbied through Congress in 1998, is a landmark achievement in paranoia. Yet now large customers such as Morgan Stanley show us we misconceive the market when we see only conflict between open-source and proprietary software business imperatives. They make this clear when they put any-with-any in a supportive position beneath few-to-many. By its relationship-agnostic nature, any-with-any can include and support peer-to-peer, many-to-many, business-to-business or any other pair of nouns flanking a preposition. If Linux is infrastructure, where does infrastructure fit? This question matters, because it provides the context within which paranoid few-to-many forces attempt to control infrastructure and prevent any-with-any from working. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source] Here is an example: [link\|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/\|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
Post #179,082 by folkert 10/13/04 11:13:35 AM Reply	This really needs to be broken out: Morgan Stanley on Linux. (new thread) Created as new thread #179081 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=179081\|This really needs to be broken out: Morgan Stanley on Linux.] -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source] Here is an example: [link\|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/\|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
Post #179,084 by deSitter 10/13/04 11:23:12 AM Reply	Super, perceptions must be changing -drl
Post #180,010 by lister 10/19/04 3:37:38 PM Reply	Back in my SA days... ...not too long ago, I usually tailored what was allowed and what wasn't depending on the environment and the users. My two biggest SA jobs were at software development companies were I was mostly dealing with developers. Some good (they were given quite a bit of leeway), some bad (next to no leeway) and some neutral. With production and some development servers I kept a lid on what could be done and anything to be added, changed, etc. went through me since anything done could affect most of the staff. In most cases those additions or changes were no problem. The developers usually had Sun workstations at their desk that they had free reign to if they so desired knowing that if they did something to it which screwed something up and I couldn't fix it fairly quickly, the system would get reinstalled via jumpstart. Any window manager was fine, any tool, or even using local workstation storage with the knowledge that it was never backed up. Certainly any other OS would have been okay as long as they understood that there wouldn't be expert support of it for a while at least. lister
Post #180,067 by folkert 10/19/04 7:10:55 PM Reply	DING, DING, DING!!! We have a winnah! -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source] Here is an example: [link\|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/\|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]

Welcome to IWETHEY!