Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-edu (243 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] Hi all
- From: Michael Brown <mbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 13:39:08 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0112051324190.8720-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Frank Shute wrote:
> > I have no problem with people customising their desktop. In fact, one of
> > our primary schools uses this as the "introduction to the computer suite"
> > lesson: the students are shown how to log on and how to play around with
> > their wallpaper etc. It's a good way for them to get familiar with the
> > interface without being distracted by anything extraneous (typing
> > exercises, etc.).
> I do have a problem with people customising their desktops - it's an
> inordinate waste of time. OK it might be a good way for them to
> familiarise themselves with the interface but in the long run it means
> that they'll end up wasting huge amounts of time prettifying and
> re-prettifying their desktops - I know since I'm guilty of it too.
> Time and motion studies of people at work at their PCs show that they
> spend >25% of their time doing just that.
That's interesting. On the other hand, maybe it's symptomatic of a deeper
problem: the lack of really *interesting* thinks to do on a computer? I
certainly remember that back when my old school changed BBCs for PCs
people stopped writing programs in BBC BASIC and started fiddling with GUI
settings instead.
For anyone who hasn't yet come across it, I would seriously recommend
taking a look at Squeak (www.squeakland.org) as an "interesting things to
do with computers for just about anyone of any age" program. Squeak is
currently my number two favourite application of all time. No description
could really do it justice - you have to try it out.
> > My experience has taught me otherwise. In addition, I have heard many
> > more tales of problems caused by locked-down systems than I have heard
> > tales of problems caused by systems left 'open'. (Obviously I'm talking
> > about just the user interface here, not the underlying system security).
> What sort of problems?
Not being able to install software (business environment), not being able
to save work because the floppy has run out of space and there is no
access to the hard disk, not being able to diagnose faults because
Start-Run was disabled, not being able to configure networking even with
the administrator password (RM WindowBox), not being able to put in the
*correct* proxy settings when the proxy server changed, not being able to
shut the machine down cleanly because only administrators can shut down
the machine, not being able to do *anything* because Win2K decided that
the local administrator did not have administrative privileges (and
simultaneously refused to allow domain logons)...
It's been possible to work around almost all of these. For example, you
can use NT's AT command to start up cmd.exe running as LocalSystem, which
enables you to bypass all local machine access restrictions. They simply
cause an irritating delay.
More worryingly is that many people will assume that locking down the user
interface actually makes the system secure...
Michael
> > I have no problem with people customising their desktop. In fact, one of
> > our primary schools uses this as the "introduction to the computer suite"
> > lesson: the students are shown how to log on and how to play around with
> > their wallpaper etc. It's a good way for them to get familiar with the
> > interface without being distracted by anything extraneous (typing
> > exercises, etc.).
> I do have a problem with people customising their desktops - it's an
> inordinate waste of time. OK it might be a good way for them to
> familiarise themselves with the interface but in the long run it means
> that they'll end up wasting huge amounts of time prettifying and
> re-prettifying their desktops - I know since I'm guilty of it too.
> Time and motion studies of people at work at their PCs show that they
> spend >25% of their time doing just that.
That's interesting. On the other hand, maybe it's symptomatic of a deeper
problem: the lack of really *interesting* thinks to do on a computer? I
certainly remember that back when my old school changed BBCs for PCs
people stopped writing programs in BBC BASIC and started fiddling with GUI
settings instead.
For anyone who hasn't yet come across it, I would seriously recommend
taking a look at Squeak (www.squeakland.org) as an "interesting things to
do with computers for just about anyone of any age" program. Squeak is
currently my number two favourite application of all time. No description
could really do it justice - you have to try it out.
> > My experience has taught me otherwise. In addition, I have heard many
> > more tales of problems caused by locked-down systems than I have heard
> > tales of problems caused by systems left 'open'. (Obviously I'm talking
> > about just the user interface here, not the underlying system security).
> What sort of problems?
Not being able to install software (business environment), not being able
to save work because the floppy has run out of space and there is no
access to the hard disk, not being able to diagnose faults because
Start-Run was disabled, not being able to configure networking even with
the administrator password (RM WindowBox), not being able to put in the
*correct* proxy settings when the proxy server changed, not being able to
shut the machine down cleanly because only administrators can shut down
the machine, not being able to do *anything* because Win2K decided that
the local administrator did not have administrative privileges (and
simultaneously refused to allow domain logons)...
It's been possible to work around almost all of these. For example, you
can use NT's AT command to start up cmd.exe running as LocalSystem, which
enables you to bypass all local machine access restrictions. They simply
cause an irritating delay.
More worryingly is that many people will assume that locking down the user
interface actually makes the system secure...
Michael
| < Previous | Next > |