[OpenAFS] Re: the notion of "site" is not always well-defined / "project cells"

Ken Hornstein kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil
Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:04:35 -0500

>This is the strange part: no such power exists here.
>Maybe it's "a Berkeley thing".  My personal interpretation is that
>people act as if "nothing is any more official than the number of
>people you've persuaded to rely on it".  The majority of the people in
>the department retain exclusive administrative control of their own
>workstation.  This is true in many other departments here as well.

I feel your pain; I'm in the exact same situation.  Multiply this by 50
different organizations, and you realize that it's a tough problem.

The difference here is that our users _have_ to use our systems to get
their work done (research grant money hinges on this).  As a result,
they are highly motivated (someone else might used the word "forced")
to download our software and configuration files.  If you don't have
this kind of leverage, I can imagine that you'll be fighting an uphill
battle.  The pain of dealing with this is the reason I'm willing to
trade what I believe is a small security risk (getting configuration
information in an insecure manner) for what is a HUGE gain in
manageability.  Sadly, decisions were made along the way to make it so
the default out-of-the-box system setup was tilted more toward security
rather than manageability.  To be fair, this is more related to
Kerberos than OpenAFS ... you should be bugging the Kerberos people
about that (but the reception you're going to get there will be even
frostier than the one you've gotten from the OpenAFS people).