Re: Locking down the User Interface

On 14 Nov, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote:

> So is one of those who want to lock user options going to tell me why
> it is so needed?

It is needed for kiosk-style operations. Granted, as long as enough
other items are locked down (shell access, editors, configuration apps)
it should be manageable. But an applet or global setting here would be

> BTW, for those who think full standarization at working place is right
> (yes, if you want bored workers, and thus improductive workers), I
> would ask them if the seats are glued and the pens have only one place
> to be put. If computer is, why not the rest? Maybe somebody is
> forgetting to lock things. ;]

I'm currently working in tech support. The call center is filled with
PCs running WinNT. Your desk is only yours for the time you occupy
it--no guarantees you'll have the same desk next shift. Now granted,
IMHO, ops made a bad decision when they chose *not* to have network
logins that would permit users to customize their look & feel and have
it available at whatever station they logged in. At any rate, any time
an agent makes a change in system settings (font style/size, color
combinations, background) it's likely to be something distasteful or
even unusable for the next user. (8 pt Arial Narrow is *so* legible!)
Hence, policy is *no changes* -- not that it's enforceable by any means
other than constant surveillance & reprimand.

In this kind of situation, a lock-down mechanism only places a facade
over other bad operational choices.

OTOH--there's something to be said for having a known state
available--without deleting/renaming *all* of the config
files/directories. This is where the current customization scheme which
uses absolute paths really makes things difficult for sysadmins.


   ld_barthel yahoo com |
       Organization: The Pennswald Group -- Linux powered!!

There's no future in time travel . . .

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]