Re: What is the maximal length of usernames on Solaris?

From: Glenn (glenn_at_IREPORTEVERYSPAMMER.canit.se)
Date: 01/01/04 

Date: 1 Jan 2004 20:6:47 +0100

> + On 31-Dec-03 04:13:26
 +Josh McKee <jtmckee@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote

>>>Which would you choose:
>>
>>>1. A car with a heater.
>>>2. A car without a heater.
>>
>>If the heater at the same time forced me to use just one type of
>>gasoline and also required service every 1000km I would take one without.

>The problem is that YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE. Haven't you figured it

Yes in this example you could.. ..And in the original example you
are free to choose an OS..

>out yet? What you want IS IRRELAVENT. You are going to think WHAT I
>TELL YOU TO THINK. You ARE INCAPABLE OF THINKING ON YOUR OWN. How many
>times do I have to tell you this? You are TOO STUPID TO DETERMINE WHAT
>YOU WANT. I KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU SO DON'T TRY AND THINK ANYTHING
>OTHER THAN WHAT I TELL YOU IS BEST FOR YOU.

Have you taken your medication today ? ..if not, I suggest you do so now.

>>>I'm no "anti-elitist". I'm practical. Plain and simple if you don't
>>>offer the customer what they want they're going to go to someone who
>>>will.
>>
>>Sure, if anyone does..
>>
>>But noone offers the perfect system for everyone, if one system offers
>>some functionality you want it probably cant do other stuff..

>I agree. But history has shown that Microsoft is offering what the
>majority wants. You can spew the technical merits of UNIX all day

No, actually it doesnt.. it mainly offers compatiblity with existing
"desktop" software.. also people get forced to buy it when buying
a computer..

However this part of the discussion get more into a OS war that should
not be discussed here, so I will not discuss this part more.

>>But that depends on what you consider successful..

>Yep. Put aside those people with rose colored glasses and you'll find
>most people consider Microsoft successful.

Alot of people also consider microsoft as a very evil company.

>>>aside their ideals and listening to what the customer wants. That's
>>
>>Do not confuze the roles of a sysadmin and the owner of the company here..

>Oh, I'm not. Usually SAs ignore what the customer wants because it's
>unlikely that the customer is going to be able to do much about it.
>That's why Richard can have the attitude that he does. If he were
>competing he'd quickly find himself out of a job.

Since I also work as a sysadmin I understand exactly what he mean,
the sysadmin is employed to keep the system in a working order.

It's like the old mail relaying "problem", seen from the managements point
of view the companys mailserver should be relaying mail, coz then the
boss can send mails with it when he's on vacation..

The sysadmin ofcoz understands that if he let the mailserver relay mail
the spammers finds the mailserver within an hour and start to spam with
it, and soon after the mailserver is blacklisted in alot of places wich
means that it disturbs the companys mail heavily..

And who's fault is this if you ask the management ? ..Ofcoz it's
the syadmins fault since he's employed to keep the system up and
working.

(Now I ignore that this problem could be solved in several ways nowadays,
like SMTP-AUTH, VPN and so on, keep in mind that this is an example.)

Ofcoz you should try to make the system as good and userfriendly
as you can, but you always have to remember that you are responsible
for that the system can perform it's basic tasks.

If someone wants a new function you have to evalute if this change
would create alot of work and problems, if it does, is it worth
if compared with the gains ? ..If you dont think so it can be a
good thing to ask your boss what he thinks, and CLEARLY inform
about every downside first, so he is aware of the problems that
will or can occure. If he say that it should be done anyway he
is at least aware of the forthcoming problems.

[ Removed the IIS sidediscussion I accidenticly started, due to the same
reasons as above, can be continued in mail or other group if someone would
be interested in that.. ]

>You don't get it do you? This is YOUR IDEAL...NOT THE CUSTOMERS. Do
>customers want a lot of administration overhead? Certainly not. But
>would they trade ease of use for additional overhead? Apparently the
>answer is YES. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE DONE. Such a situation

Actually microsofts hold a relativly low marketshare when it comes to
large and/or sensitive systems...

>isn't my ideal. It apparently isn't yours. But it appears to be THEIRS
>because they've traded additional overhead for ease of use...THAT'S
>WHY THEY USE WINDOWS INSTEAD OF UNIX. You need to put yourself in
>THEIR SHOES AND LOOK AT WHAT THEY WANT AND NOT AT WHAT YOU WANT.

*Personally* I only use windows for playing games, and only do it at home
(both my stationary machines at work run Solaris, my laptops run Linux)

But I see the difference between the "system" as in the servers and
infrastructure and the workstations..

I know alot of people that admins UNIX systems where nearly all users
use windowsmachines on their desktops, why ? mainly coz it's more
costeffective and functional to use some *ix on the servers,
and at the desktops people often have to or want to use software
that runs on windows..

>>Well.. its time that you wake up and understand that you cant have it all.

>No you can't. And history has shown that what they want and what you
>want are two different things. And they're the ones making the

Yes, and as a sysadmin you have to constantly compare all cons and pros
from a change or a new function..

>decision. They have chosen the Windows platform based on THEIR
>WANTS...NOT OURS.

..They also have to take the problems.. unfortunatly I have too,
even if my systems doesnt spread alot of *** over the net all the time
I get the *** from all badly administrated windowsmachines..

As I said before, You can't have it all.

>>And for the main question about username length.. the problem is that if
>>someone fix it, alot of other stuff will break.. and since it's not a real
>>problem its not worth fixing it.

>What a dumbass you are. If you bothered TO READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN
>YOU'LL SEE THAT I PROPOSED THAT IT BE CHANGED IN A MANNER THAT DOESN'T
>BREAK BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY...MUCH LIKE THE HUNDREDS OF CHANGES THAT
>THEY'VE DONE IN A SIMILAR MANNER.

I will not get into namecalling as you tend to do, but what you said was
basically "I want to build a car that are driven by Water, OFCOZ it's can
be done, we just have to make up the inventions needed first"

You dont seem to realize the problems involved.

[ More namecallings and *** throwing removed.. ]