|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 100 responses total. |
carson
|
|
response 75 of 100:
| 
Apr 9 01:22 UTC 1996 |
aye; doesn't the progression go the other way, i.e., fw < cfadm < root?
|
janc
|
|
response 76 of 100:
|
Apr 9 02:24 UTC 1996 |
Seems like the sensible way to do things to me. A cfadm ought to be pretty
near as trusted as a root, but I don't see why he or she has to be as
knowledgable as a root, or be a root. We should really try to provide
utilites and a job description that make the job accessible to a wider set
of people.
|
remmers
|
|
response 77 of 100:
|
Apr 9 10:40 UTC 1996 |
I vaguely remember some board discussion about making cfadm's
root, but I don't recall the rationale. To be a cfadm, you do
need to know your way around the Unix file system fairly well--
directories, permissions, basic commands like "mkdir", "mv",
"rm", etc., plus knowledge of a text editor. But that's a lot
less than what you should know to be root. Offhand I can't think
of a strong reason why cfadm's need to be root.
Trustworthiness is very important of course, and a reasonable
level of meticulousness, and an ability to work with people.
It *is* possible for a cfadm person to wipe out a whole con-
ference with a single command if they're careless or don't know
what they're doing.
Not sure I see high value in writing special-purpose cfadm
utilities. The basic Unix file and directory commands are all
you need. Back when Grex was new, I wrote a couple of tutorials
on conference file structure and cfadm functions. These could
be used to help train new cfadm's--they were when Dave Love-
lace and Scott Helmke became cfadm's a year or so ago.
|
scott
|
|
response 78 of 100:
|
Apr 9 11:01 UTC 1996 |
When I started as cfadm, I wasn't root. I was cfadm, which requires a bit
of UNIX knowledge (and the usual Grexian ability to deal with strange
problems), but doesn't require root access.
|
carson
|
|
response 79 of 100:
|
Apr 9 11:43 UTC 1996 |
I've read a couple of cfadm help files on M-Net, and pretty much
agree with John's assessment.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 80 of 100:
|
Apr 9 15:50 UTC 1996 |
Hm... I could definitely see Carson as a cfadm....
|
dang
|
|
response 81 of 100:
|
Apr 9 17:54 UTC 1996 |
I could too.
|
janc
|
|
response 82 of 100:
|
Apr 9 17:58 UTC 1996 |
I did one suid-root utility for cfadm on M-Net. It's a program that
deletes all participation files for a given conference. So when you nuke
a conference, you can nuke all the participation files for it too. I think
that was the only special utility we had. I'm pretty sure I have the
source for it.
|
dpc
|
|
response 83 of 100:
|
Apr 13 20:43 UTC 1996 |
I've been cfadm on M-Net a couple of times and saw no reason to have
root access. Indeed, I would have resisted such access because it is
so dangerous.
|
scott
|
|
response 84 of 100:
|
Apr 13 21:27 UTC 1996 |
It's currently set up on Grex to have cfadm be a non-root operation.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 85 of 100:
|
Apr 14 00:12 UTC 1996 |
has the practice been that all grex staffers have to be root?
|
slynne
|
|
response 86 of 100:
|
Apr 14 00:19 UTC 1996 |
Too many roots could be dangerous. It seems resonable to me to have
cfadms without root access.
|
srw
|
|
response 87 of 100:
|
Apr 14 01:49 UTC 1996 |
No it really hasn't. Many staffers started doing staffish work without root.
Root came later.
|
davel
|
|
response 88 of 100:
|
Apr 14 18:32 UTC 1996 |
The one cfadm chore that currently needs root is deleting the conference
participation files when a conference is deleted.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 89 of 100:
|
Apr 15 16:34 UTC 1996 |
Right, and that's the one that Jan may already have written a program to do.
|
janc
|
|
response 90 of 100:
|
Apr 16 13:30 UTC 1996 |
Yup, I have a usable version of the "killpart" program from M-Net. It would
let cfadm remove all participation files for any conference. Do we want it?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 91 of 100:
|
Apr 17 12:53 UTC 1996 |
Sure!
|
jep
|
|
response 92 of 100:
|
Apr 20 22:00 UTC 1996 |
I took about 1/2 year off from coop. That's not for any particular
reason; I more or less took 1/2 year off from Grex.
The last time I logged in here, in August 1995, there were about 100
items, and I was active in 10 or so of them. There had been about 100
items in coop for several years -- 95 of them were on the same topics --
and I was continuously active in about 10 -- more or less on the same
subjects.
Now, Grex coop seems really boring to me. Where are all the old
items about whether Grex should be moving to Intel hardware? There are
still some of the same "tel" and "write" items that I left when I took my
vacation from Grex, although they aren't quite the same. There doesn't
seem to be an item about 501(c)(3). It was an old friend, right back to
the beginning of Grex, and a steady draw for discussion.
It's like Grex solved all the issues we used to talk about here. All
I see are *new* discussions, mostly. I can't be the only cranky old user
who deplores that. I'd have to write new macros for discussing all this
new junk.
|
steve
|
|
response 93 of 100:
|
Apr 21 00:05 UTC 1996 |
Heh.
Well, some of the disucssion has moved to garage, where more technical
things are talked about.
Hey--we're galactically boring, right? Coop then, fits right in...
;-)
|
sidhe
|
|
response 94 of 100:
|
Apr 21 04:29 UTC 1996 |
How about socially obsolete?
|
janc
|
|
response 95 of 100:
|
Apr 21 14:15 UTC 1996 |
We don't really seem to have any burning policy issues these days. If the
CDA gets upheld, we'll probably develop some though.
|
dang
|
|
response 96 of 100:
|
Apr 21 18:27 UTC 1996 |
Or at least have some reallyhot debates about developing some.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 97 of 100:
|
Apr 22 05:31 UTC 1996 |
Jep! Welcome back! We missed you. Hey, the rumor mill says to tell you
congratulations about your upcoming kid! So, congratulations!!
|
jep
|
|
response 98 of 100:
|
Apr 22 15:50 UTC 1996 |
(Thanks! I'll try to get to agora someday and leave a message about
my change in lifestyle over the last 8 months.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 99 of 100:
|
Apr 23 09:22 UTC 1996 |
welcome back jep - good to read you again. Life sounds wnderful
for you ... of course i know whre you are living (couldn't fnd it
again though) and that's a wonderful place!
|