APT-GET

[Woodchuck]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Joerg Zinke wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 19:46:47 +0100
> "Fredrik Ludl" <ludl1 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I realise where I am.
> > But I have 50+ desktop users to support.
> > Thats where I am.
> > Its cheaper and better to give them 4.0 than start to upgrade to
> > something else.
> > I do not want to use Debian/Ubunto.
> > So I am asking for a better interface for users for installing
> > programs.
> > 
> 
> your users are allowed to install programs?

Sure.  He has 50 users presumably on 50 separate hosts.

Now if these are 50 stock clerks, you do not want them installing
any software at all.  But suppose they are 50 electrical engineers?
A herd of post-doc chemists?

There are definitely some circumstances when the owner of a host
on a network is going to want to install his own packages, even if
this means just selecting from a menu of "approved packages" for
the whole site.  ("I don't design logic circuits, why should I
install SPICE?  I write C code, so I want lint, and I'd also like
a Modula III compiler and Eiffel, because my client has some stuff
in those languages to integrate with XYZ.  I won't have python on
any machine I use, either!")  Regardless, you, as admin, would like
a consistent way to install and audit these packages, and to be
able to assist the user when trouble arises, rather than having to
say, "You installed that mess, you were warned, it's your problem."

There are many circumstances in which the admin is NOT superior to
his users in the hierarchy.  We *serve* the users.

We trick the users, too.  One trick is to give them bait to do what
we want.  If they like GUI installers, we give them one, or I assure
you they will become uncooperative enemies.  Telling such users
that they cannot use software XYZ because of a choice of OS will
very likely result in a change of OS.  I've seen this personally.
And I've seen changes in OS result in changes in personnel. ;-)

> try x11/pbrowser from ports.

I just installed it.  My, my, that looks like a very useful tool,
thanks for mentioning it.  It may meet OP's needs, too.

However, the first thing to do with it is to modify it to remove
the nastygram if you run it as root.  This can easily be hacked in
its "main.c" file, right at the top.  Actually, this should be
controllable by a switch at run time, or maybe a "flavor" in the
installation process.  I will not be nannied...

Something else that pbrowser could do (much harder, perhaps), is
to allow selection of the "root" of the ports tree,
("/usr/site-approved-ports" or something like that), or perhaps
allow pruning the ports tree displayed.  Changing the root of the
ports tree also appears to be an easy hack.

Dave
-- 
       Of a truth, few men desire freedom, the greater part
           are content with just masters. --  Sallust