And for distro, desktop and server should follow different paths IMO, just keep the same package manager if possible so Red hat/CentOS on server and fedora on Desktop, or Debian on server and Ubuntu on Desktop…
]]>on your security points for example, i’d go find out why these requests are made. what is it that the db guy really needs to do? what are the developers trying to do? maybe they need to be put in a seperate subnet to protect the rest of the network while the developers are more exposed.
as for the update of software, that’s sometimes an outside problem, sometimes it is just an issue of timing. not sure how it can be helped other than strengthening outside protection, maybe having policies that require developers machines to be uptodate, keep developers alerted about upcoming upgrades so they can prepare for it. i’d maybe also make the security team part of the development team and have them involved in decisions about which versions are best for supporting.
as for the uniform environment, i simply disagree with that one.
one of my clients had standardized on fedora. sure, not the best choice, but it worked.
then asterisk came along.
asterisk is best supported on centos. do you think i put it on a fedora machine? no way. that would have meant extra work for me for something that is meant to be extra stable.
people can deal with a hickup on a desktop. but have the phones go down and they cry bloody murder.
yes, tracking multiple distributions is more work if they all do the same job, but i found that some distributions are not suitable for some things. for servers i want something really stable, debian stable, centos, etc…
but on desktops people want newer software, so we need something like ubuntu, fedora. or even foresight.
developers are a mixed bag, on the one hand the need new versions of tools, and on the other they may need to deploy on stable servers. the best advice i have seen here recommends that every developer have a different system, that way ensuring that the product being developed runs on the widest selection of different systems (that includes mac os, windows and a few different linux distributions, maybe even bsd or solaris.)
also, a homogeneous environment is easier to attack. if the attacker found a way itno one machine, then all machines are accessible, whereas in a heterogeneous system such attacks are less easy to exploit.
greetings, eMBee.
]]>You should check out the IT horror stories at the Computerworld Shark Tank. Get yourself a free T-shirt for sharing one. I did.
]]>