Dotan Cohen 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. Many businesses just want something that works and is easy to >> manage, even if there are "issues" such as no backups. The target >> audience is the general public, and the general public isn't going to >> know how to configure servers using a CLI. They want something simple >> that gets the job done, and they're who we need to cater for. >> > > Then when these inexperienced "admins" screw up, who will be to blame? > Ubuntu, naturally, fo not making ABC or XYZ intuitive, obvious, or > easy. > > Why not have a GUI program that performs brain surgery? That rebuilds > Ford smallblocks? That gives legal advice? Some jobs require a > professional, and making them "accessible" does nobody any good.
I completely disagree. There's no theoretical reason why a computer program couldn't do any of the above. "Professionals" are primarily required to protect professionals' jobs. In practice, computers can't actually do any of those jobs _yet_, though it probably wouldn't be beyond current capability to have them rebuild engines or provide good legal advice (at least in any precedent-based legal system). I certainly believe that UIs can be built that can do a better job of system and network administration than the average person currently doing those jobs, and it really doesn't matter how much you, or anybody else, thinks that those jobs _should_ be done by professionals - it isn't going to happen. Right or wrong, companies don't believe in paying professional rates for administrative work. -- 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
