Corporate Reactions to Linux (fwd)

Richard Kail e8903122 at
Mon Oct 11 23:53:52 GMT 1999

Hello !

On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

> the point i really have to make here, therefore, is that the corporation
> should have banned USERs from setting up unauthorised computers (or should
> fire anyone that does so without consulting their network authorities).  
> i mean, how stupid can you get.  setting up a network server without
> reading up on the consequences of your actions.
> the second point is that the decision to ban linux, if followed to its
> logical conclusion by the unmentioned corporation, should result in all
> systems (listed above) being banned as well.  yes, all of them.

If you are thinking about "keeping things up and running" it is ok to see
things this way.

If you are thinking about security things are looking a little bit
different. Banning users from doing /something/ may be a pragmatic way to
keep things up and running; if you have to garantee that things are up and
running and you can not risk failures and there is no way to garantee that
users are not doing /something/, you can not rely on SMB, PDC and so
Windows NT Servers at all.

Now, try to explain /this/ your "PHB"'s.

Have a nice day,


"Either gravity is different than we think it is or time is messed up
somehow" -- Michael Nieto, about the unexpected slowdown of space probes.

More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list