I've worked at places where individual users (developers, engineers, and other tech savvy folks) have admin rights.

In every case, it's a balance. The ease of getting things done quickly vs. manageability and security of the computer involved.

If you lock a computer down so the installed apps can be used but nothing else can be installed, it tends to be relatively stable, and you don't get rogue programs installed that cause problems and generate extra work for installers and work disruption for users. The other end of the spectrum means anyone can install what they want. You give rights to everyone and end up with constant rebuilds and virus problems, etc. These can be just minor annoyances or in the worst case can disrupt business or cause legal issues (like loss of private or protected data) that will shut the company down. At the very least they create lots of extra work for someone in the company.

So, many managers (tech savvy and not) are deciding that they need to lock down control of work computers. Basically, they remove the ability to do anything but run work related applications (centrally installed to ensure licensing works and to make sure everyone has the same version) to simplify support and lower costs (which are a big headache for any IT manager).

This makes things more complicated for individuals with legitimate business reasons to install software (like dev add-ons or new versions of libraries, etc). In the case of a locked down system, the central authority in the business for support needs to provide a way to respond to requests to install needed software quickly. This can be either an automated system with menus, or an on-call support staff that handles things. With remote access to desktops they can generally get things installed quickly enough that work isn't significantly delayed. If and only if management recognizes that this support is necessary (people hear what they want to hear, and too often management thinks the clamor against locking down workstations is simply bruised egos (see below)).

This problem comes in when a company decides to solve its rogue software problems by restricting desktop access but doesn't provide any way to request "special" software. Unless your company is very unusual, certain users will need software that's not generally installed everywhere, and not everyone will fit the "standard business software" mold. This is a rough parallel to IT departments restricting access and forcing change control for "production" tier systems without changing their development processes to remove the need for production access. You're left with a choice to either break the rules or not get work done, and god help you if you try to explain things to whichever manager is getting a pat on the back for "securing the system".

Of course, the reason most people ask questions like the submitter is probably due to ego. The emotion behind the question runs roughly "I'm a smart (guy, girl).. I've been progamming and running my own system since before this OS was released! I don't need a low paid staffer to handle this for me, and you're just slowing me down! I feel insulted by you not giving me privileges and trusting me to keep things working!"

Having control is a hard habit to break. Taking it away from people who've "always" had it is like introducing change control to a company that's always been a free for all... people see the change as extra procedure being introduced that is unnecessary and slows down "real work".

The best way I've found to deal with people who want admin rights because their ego demands control is to ask them if they're also willing to accept responsibility for their workstation being productive. The desktop support folks or central desktop team accept this as part of their job.. in cases of heavily regulated industries, there may be legal requirements for someone to be responsible for the integrity of such systems. So once you get the person complaining about a lack of access rights to calm down, ask them if they're willing to be legally and financially responsible for keeping their system working. If they're smart they'll say no and go back to work.

If they accept responsibility, put it in writing, follow through and dock their paycheck for the time their workstation is unavailable (you'll have to have someone check now and then). Once their paycheck takes a couple hits, they'll probably be ok with a lack of privileges, and they'll be a good example for anyone else who "has" to have admin rights.

Erik

Actually, I did make the stub myself :) Hot rolled square bar of steel faced off and then turned and threaded in the lathe for 1250 lb axle (IE no taper to mess up).

Not for a heavy use trailer or anything, but I was proud of it... I'm not a pro machinist.

Let me put it this way... CNC doesn't change things on its own. People not making things now aren't going to suddenly run out and buy a CNC system, even if it's dirt cheap (relatively).

But cheap CNC appeals to do it yourself types the same way fixing their own car, building their own furniture, and home gunsmithing appeals to them. They'll get a machine for 1-2 purposes, like making a custom set of speaker grilles or gunsight rails. Once they have a machine that can make anything out of a given material, they'll start looking for things to make.

I believe we're going to see more and more people making things in tiny shops or hobby labs that before were only bought from factories, because it'll be easy and economical to do so.

Since these people won't be corporations trying to keep secrets, they'll trade CNC patterns like people trade cross stitch patterns now.

We'll be going from the ability to learn to make things by studying online to the ability to make things instantly by downloading the code.

Not everything, but an awful lot of things.

Pretty cool, I think.

Erik

Again, It's true that some things cannot/will not be made at home, always.

You're wrong about heat treating, by the way. Plenty of folks out there have set up their own small foundries, and are casting aluminum and iron. Plenty of other folks (like me) have computer controlled kilns for case hardening.

I think if some complex process is a stumbling block to making a desired item, the designer will try to work around it... redesign a part so it doesn't need the complex process, or substitute a process that can be performed simply. If you post on certain engineering or DIY boards online with a challenge like "design a toaster that can be built with hand tools" you'll get 20-30 people giving it a shot.

I'm not saying that grandma is going to have a forging press in her living room. I'm saying that there will probably be a couple of people living in her town that build things, and then a couple more, until down the line the "best" stuff won't come from big factories, but from small shops. eg. look at the high end bicycle world... all the top of the line stuff is from tiny makers who specialize in a small list of items.

There's a world of difference between benchtop tools and small CNC. The latter requires far less skill to produce far more complex parts. More to the point, CNC permits easy replication or repeated parts with high tolerances. Make one for yourself, and one for a friend.

There'll always be professional engineers and drafters, but there are also people who love to design things for free.. witness the availability of free CNC machine designs online, and patterns to run on them. Or free software, for that matter.

Woodwork and metalwork are apples and oranges. You can make some nice things with wood, but unless you love having nice furniture, the options are limited. For metal though, you can make machine parts that will handle large forces and wear well.

Note that I'm not saying that all things will be made at home... just some things, enough to turn the economy on its ear and change the way the government has to try to control objects... which is a futile endeavor anyway.

Oddly enough I had to replace an axle stub about a month ago :)

A huge trend in the near future (0-20 years) will be home and distributed engineering (inventing) and manufacturing. People will trade information on technologies, how-to information, plans, and parts to make sophisticated products in their home or workshop.

This is not to say we're all going to get replicators or nanotech manufacturing like in "The Diamond Age" but the level of sophistication of home built products is going to go way, way up. From small appliances to tools to vehicles to weapons, it'll be possible to make a large number of items in places other than traditional factories, in small quantity and high quality.

To see this sort of thing emerging, look at efforts like Reprap to make a self replicating 3d prototyping machine (which probably won't be 100% self replicating for a long time, but which is a great starting point for at-home applications of the technology) or home CNC machines like router tables and small CNC machine tools. You can buy a CNC milling machine capable of producing small parts eg. for firearms and small engines for less than $3000 with computer. Once these become widespread part libraries for them will be as available as clip-art. Want a new part for your bicycle? Download the pattern, place the raw material in the machine, and walk away.

As quality items become harder to find in mass produced outlets, items made at home will take their place. Any item with a niche market will probably be made in these mini manufactoria... there won't be a profit any more in making small quantity items since there'll be tremendous competition from small manufacturers.

No need to keep an inventory of obscure auto parts on hand (or to pay for storage space or sunk costs in the inventory). Just keep the pattern available and churn out parts as needed. Need a part you don't have a pattern for? Ask someone on the internet to measure their part and make a pattern from it, using the same CNC mill to automate the measurements.

I like the trend myself... but can you imagine the fit the government will throw when it figures out it can no longer regulate eg. firearms because anyone with a CNC mill can turn one out in a day or two? I can see them at first trying to ban home manufacturing, trying to ban precursor items and materials, then trying to create an overarching government agency to police the whole thing.

It'll be similar to recording companies figuring out they're no longer needed since anyone can distribute or purchase music on-line without their involvement.

Likewise I can see large corporate manufacturers of some items begging for a government bail-out because no one wants to buy their mass produced crap any more. Why pay $100 for a cheap wal-mart bike when the CNC machine shop in the next town can produce one with 3x the quality for the same price? Why pay a computer store $35 for a plastic keyboard when you can get a solid brass one with better components made at home?

Erik PS: For those of you that know what this means... we'll be able to evolve an STC pattern for common items :)

There's a self identification happening here with the "open source community" for a number of reasons, and it's a common occurrence among a lot of open source advocates. What usually happens is that fans end up with a binary view of the software production system... specifically the idea that there exists an "us and them" conflict between open source and commercial software, and between the authors of same. It's kind of the same impulse that makes people identify with a sports team based in their city or state as "their" team, or advocating their own brand of computer for emotional rather than rational reasons.

Humans want to belong to groups, they get a good feeling from it. So even in cases where clear "us and them" groups don't exist, they perceive them, since without a group they have nowhere to belong.

There are a lot of reasons for this both biological and social. The phenomenon seems to be a human universal, though.

To make things more complicated, once a person identifies his or herself with a group, then they personalize attacks on or praise for that group themselves.. it's a major reason they want to belong in the first place, since it can provide immense positive feelings with little effort, and can provide them more often than a single person's efforts alone would.

This personalization usually means whomever is involved can no longer be effectively reasoned with where the group, it's attributes, or goals are concerned. This is because either consciously or subconsciously that person feels threatened by any suggestion that the group is "wrong" or incorrect, or even worse that the perceived group doesn't exist.

So, in this case the submitter is assuming that the rest of the folks here on Slashdot are A) Aware of the "us and them" groups, B) Part of the "us" group, and C) Also concerned about this "issue" which has been brought to light (probably only partly for advocacy reasons... another large burst of good emotional feelings comes from actively representing the group to which one belongs, and warning of impending doom is a good way to represent. See also the football fans that paint themselves and wear their team's colors.

The truth in this case is that there are many more parties involved than just two, and that the assumed conflict doesn't exist. If one looks back to the origins of the free software movement, there were no restrictions placed on commercial use of the GPL software (or its predecessors). In fact, the GPL allows commercial use of licensed software without fee or restriction except for the provision to distribute source code.

The hard thing for a lot of people who are concerned about this "conflict" to wrap their head around is that there's no conflict, and in fact commercial software stacked on top of open source is a very good thing for any open source platform... it means everyone wins. People can make money off of their work, other people can get commercially supported apps they need, and no one is held hostage to a closed source operating system or distribution method.

Imagine what the iPhone would be like if Apple didn't control the OS, and wasn't able to control the software written for the device... there'd be far fewer $9 apps that are crap since someone would immediately write something better, and having no one to say "no" would get it published.

Erik

If the pundits could predict what Google was doing, they'd be rich corporate heads, not writers trying to guess what's going on.

I personally think that just maybe Google is going to offer a "free" phone.. not free as in beer, free as in speech.. where it costs more than a "subscriber sponsored" phone, maybe more than the iPhone, but which users will buy if it's not insanely expensive simply to get a "free" device... one not locked to a carrier with features turned off because the carrier wants to protect its business model.

One with a standard design and API that permits software to be developed with more than generic features, like the iPhone. But one that's not locked to Apple's corporate policies and whims, like the iPhone.

One that will set a standard for a new type of wireless phone system that is "the way it ought to be" with users owning their full featured phones and having the freedom to buy minutes from whichever carrier they like on a day to day basis, or to buy none at all but to use the ubiquitous wireless hotspots and networks to make calls.

Google may be using its corporate muscle to break the wireless carriers' hold on the market, a hold which has ensured them profits but which has stymied development of truly next generation wireless connectivity, which itself would drive a major change in society. Remember what internet access was like before wireless? Imagine that kind of change if the wireless carriers loosen their government ensured grip on the market.

Data and voice for everyone, "the way it ought to be". And it may start with a free phone.

Erik

No problem... I just buy the new printer. It's a loss leader, aka the company selling it takes a loss it plans to make back through ink sales, and I don't buy ink. So they subsidize my new printer.

For the old printer, I recycle it... either through an electronics recycling facility, or through my own hobbies. Printers usually have one or more stepper motors, timing pulleys, belts, useful metal shafts... great for amateur robotics folks. The electronics can be used for BEAM robots.

Long term I'm planning on dumping the printer altogether... once e-ink books get to the point where they're color and cheap, I won't need paper hardcopy, I'll just transfer over the docs to my e-book.

Erik

Erik

This is kinda apples and oranges, but I'll go with it a bit.

The difference between iPhone and VW is that Apple's not just dictating appropriate and safe use... if I wanted to use my iPhone as a pacemaker they'd be quite right to void my warranty and run screaming from the whole idea.

What they're doing, though, is more like dictating what appropriate use is, apart from simply letting common sense and consumers decide.

To use the VW analogy, it would be like VW requiring VW only gas to be used in their cars, which is more expensive and harder to get than non VW gas. Even though chemically identical and quite usable non-VW gas is out there, and some of it might offer more horsepower or cleaner emissions, VW would threaten to void your warranty if you used it and would verify use via an internal sensor in the gas tank.

The thing that makes this behavior unacceptable isn't even the whole "VW only" rules and mechanisms described above, although it's a red flag to me. It's the reason VW would do it... to preserve their control of their cars and how they're used, because control means more profit for them from "VW Brand" gas and the ability to alter that fuel's composition or delivery mechanism as they see fit.

Apple isn't trying to keep consumers safe or indicate which uses of its products will result in damage to them or injury. They're exercising a level of control over items no longer theirs that no manufacturer should have. It'd be different if they were up front and said something like "You're not buying your iPhone, you're just leasing it from us..." but they're not. They sell them.

When I buy something, it's mine. So I'm going to show my disagreement with their behavior by not buying their products.

Erik

You know, it's a red flag to me and many people when someone quotes numbers like this. "you have only a 0.7% margin in which they respond with a 10-second lag".

Other than the fact that there's not enough information here to be meaningful, this is like saying about cars that "You have a 2 second lag between gas pedal control and acceleration, enough to be dangerous, and top speed is only 70 kph".

Apart from the fact there's no way to verify the numbers given, this ignores the fact obvious to even amateur engineers that NOT ALL NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE ENGINEERED THE SAME.

ONE plant might have the numbers given for reaction control. Who knows?

But really what quoting exact numbers that spell doom and gloom and then claiming they apply across all instances of something as complex as power plants says to anyone reading it: "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I memorized these numbers because they agree with my beliefs and I can use them as 'proof' that I'm right."

Meh

So your justification for this is "you don't need that"? I can in fact think of plenty of cases where I'd like to talk directly to the underlying hardware... to get the most out of a given system, to replace firmware routines or BIOS with better software... But the main issue remains unchanged.. it's not whether I have an immediate need to do something, it's whether I'm *allowed* to use my own computer, which I've paid for, to do it, and publish my results.

Yeah, if they didn't supply cool features people wouldn't accept their level of control :)

Um, no. Making things "easier and more reliable" has in fact the opposite effect... a "more reliable" system usually is also more resistant to malicious software than one less carefully engineered. Sorry, but I'm not buying Apple's explanation here. It's an excuse to justify their control.

I didn't say they were. Only Sith deal in absolutes.

LOL... so I'm "free" to write and use whatever software I want, as long as I don't spread it around? Do you even understand how ridiculous that is? It's like a typewriter manufacturer dictating what kinds of books can be written using their machine. It's *mine*, I bought it, so I'll write what I want and do with it what I want, thank you.

Forcing, no. That's the center of the ethical argument, actually. They aren't forcing people, they're just acting within the gray area of law and ethical behavior, holding out the shiny bauble with one hand to distract customers who aren't bright enough to watch the other hand carefully herding them away from things that "no one really needs to do"... things that coincidentally would threaten their profit margin. I see the shiny, and I like it, but I like freedom more, and I'm gonna wait and hope someday Apple either changes, or some more ethical corporation out-competes them... shiny things *with* freedom can't be beat.

Erik