Re: [cobalt-users] Re: Re: whois...'nt.

[baltimoremd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Charlie Summers wrote:

> At 3:52 PM -0400 7/20/01, Carrie Bartkowiak is rumored to have typed:
> 
> > (remember this was Cobalt's choice, not Sun's - Sun
> > just came into this recently)
> 
> I have no intention of being PC and typing, "Cobalt/Sun." Sun is faster, in
> the tradition of un*x users not typing more characters than necessary.

But, the RaQ's are not covered by *nix traditions...they are in a class by
themselves...designed for and largely operated by "Appliance Operators".
> 
> > In Cobalt's eyes, it's not an "error", it's a feature that their
> > target customers would never need (since they're not supposed to go
> > 'under the hood').
> 
>    That would be an excellent explaination if it were true, and is a great
> excuse for them even though it isn't - but you give them way too much credit
> for actually "thinking."

In some areas the twisted logic is well thought out...take majordomo...the
Cobalt Way virtually precludes the site administrator from using any
standard email majordomo commands, since there is no help file.  All the
admin trivia goes to the box owner.  But, if you start off with a box
owner being an appliance operator, it follows that the site administrator
knows even less, and therefore should have less access to majordomo than
the person who owns the box.

Now, if some enterprising box owner wanted to offer his clients majordomo
archives and digests...he/she would find that the files assocaited with
those lists are NOT stored in the individual site areas.

Accepting the premise that the site admin knows less than the box owner,
it makes sense to NEVER let the listowner see the error messages, since
then he/she might have a question, which the Appliance Operator might not
be able to answer.

In order to that, Cobalt makes the admin account the owner of all lists.
But of course that way, you as the box owner know when one of the lists
your customer has set up has a problem.

See, it all makes sense...produce a crippled system, but be very logical
in how you maim it.


>    I really didn't meant to get into a huge debate with my initial post; I
> have made NO secret that I think the kiddies who cobbled together the OS for
> the RaQ machines did things the most difficult and unintuitive possible way

My contention is that they did it to palm off the concept that you don't
need to know anything about the OS(See the sales hype) to own a
RaQ...reminds me of the late-nite infomercials about setting up an online
business.

Side benefit....at 200 bucks per hour for support, a basterdized system
could be a profit center.

> tongue-in-cheek with my disgust. I'm confident that anyone used to adminning
> "real" linux boxes can see that most of the stunts they pulled were _not_
> required for a GUI, but rather specifically designed to frustrate anyone who
> had half a clue.

See logic above....they weren't thinking of you...they were thinking of
Appliance Operators like me.

> 
>    Sorry to all about being so seriously cranky on this subject...I usually
> have a curmudgeonly humorous style, and promise to revert to it ASAP. (I
> think I'm safe in saying that, my fears to Thom LaCosta aside, I haven't
> _yet_ been assimilated by the CobaltBorg...this Grasshopper snatches the
> pebble and then throws it back at you.  ;)

But, aside from a re-write of the GUI, or buying a vanilla server, you
WILL have to don the mantle of the "Cobalt Way" and become one of the
grasshoppers, even if you throw pepples.

Welcome to the wide, wonderful and logical(g)  world of Cobalt.

Thom

baltimoremd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx             Thom LaCosta K3HRN Webmaster