Ryan Dwyer wrote: > I agree that all networks should be managed by an experienced > administrator, but unfortunately a lot of them aren't. We can't change > that.
Indeed - so instead of saying that administration should only be _possible_ by experts, we need _poor_ administration to be _impossible_ (or at least difficult). > Many businesses just want something that works and is easy to > manage, even if there are "issues" such as no backups. And everyone's entitled to not have backups. But if your server sends emails telling you you don't have any backups, that could be a hint :-) > No amount of marketing will make regular people switch to Linux on their > home desktop. Regular people don't even know what an operating system is. More importantly, though, if you give them a Linux with all the tools needed to interoperate with Windows, they don't _know_ they're running Linux, either. >> I will never understand why a server GUI would improve anything? I will never understand why elitists hate GUIs. A good UI should improve things by absolutely preventing misconfiguration. >> If you >> are (also) in Windows system administration you know that a GUI has it's >> limitations. And even good Windows admins know how to write Windows >> scripts for automation and need to read a lot of documentation. Knowledge >> is one of the most important things for a system administrator. Doing >> things on the command line in Ubuntu gives you the chance to get this >> knowledge. But, as Ryan points out, just because a sysadmin _should_ have knowledge doesn't mean that the person running the system will ever be knowledgeable. You don't get paid enough as a sysadmin to care. -- derek -- 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
