users vs. admins (was Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: L*nus)

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Colin Walters <address@hidden>

    > On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 01:05, Tom Lord wrote:

z    > > NB: We aren't "fighting" OSU admins at all ---  we were, until he
    > > switched focus -- fighting walters' internalized perception of them
    > > and his acting out: taking out the perceived oppression by them on the
    > > GNU arch project.   

    > No.  It apparently wasn't clear from my previous posts, but: I agree
    > with them.  There is no "oppression".

    > (Or rather, I agree with what I believe would be their response if
    > presented with the question at hand; it is worth repeating that I
    > haven't actually asked, not that I think I need to).

If you have a chance, please look over the approaches outlined in the
recent post "on being an ass".   I think there are reasonable and
secure solutions here that would have very low impact on the admins
you're talking about.

I understand that you agree with what you think the admin policies are
and don't see that as oppressive:  that's roughly what I mean by
"internalized".   I would have been clearer if I had said:

        "taking out the perceived restrictions imposed by these admin
         policies (which if they are actual restrictions I would
         consider to be oppressive)...."

In other words, you seem to make certain assumptions about what the
admins would consider.    In light of those assumptions, you don't
even _look_ at a potential space of solutions because all of those
solutions fall under the umbrella of "what I think the admins would
refuse".  And in response to _that_, you argue fairly passionately for
some rather questionable work-arounds to be added to arch.

>From my point of view, some of the solutions under that
umbrella-of-presumed-refusal are quite reasonable.  For example, you
just brushed aside a hefty class of solutions you described
pejoratively as something like "hacked up ssh subsystems".  Well, you
know, the hacking needed to make some of those systems is pretty
trivial, easy to evaluate, has a sane, reasonable purpose, and implies
really very little administrative burden.  So if you just brush these
aside with "can't even be considered" then I'm starting to look around
for what has gone wrong here.

You know, if you have a legitimate need to set something up on the
machines in question, if the project you propose is consistent with
the "mission" of those machines -- well, that's what they're there
for!

The idea that it's reasonable to refuse to set up such a project in a
simple and reasonable way, whether that's an idea just in your head or
an idea that the admins would really share, is a bogus idea.   If that
idea dominates, in my view, it's an oppressive circumstance.

There's a way that oppression functions which is quite insidious.
People accept it, come to believe it's normal, and then subconciously
rationalize it by changing their value systems and beliefs.  That's
what the (technical) term "internalized" refers to in this context:
the process by which people come to have a world view in which
oppression doesn't have to be overt because everyone just "plays
along" and believes that in doing so, they are doing the right thing.

Don't get me wrong:  I'm well aware that this is just a silly
instance.  The oppression around your freedoms using some academic
computing network are, on the grand scale of oppression, somewhere
awefully close to "too small to worry about".    I'm not suggesting
that you get some poster board and start picketing the computing
center or anything.  "I'm just sayin'...."

And, in the grand scheme of things -- there's a bigger picture here.
There's a reason why, even though this little issue about OSU is
unimportant to all of us, you might want to look at the patterns here
and consider how they play out in larger contexts.

For decades, now, people have worked on the idea of "computing as
service" and "thin clients" and so forth.  Every couple of years you
hear from Larry Ellison or Sun or Microsoft or somebody about how, in
the future, none of us will buy computers.  Instead, we'll buy little
solid state terminals and log in to Big Servers managed by Big
Companies.

There's a huge economic and technical incentive for that.  No more
internet virus problems.  Constant upgrading of applications.  Steady
stream of subscription fees.  For users: access from any terminal,
anywhere; no need to learn to be a sysadmin.....    It's an idea that
has a lot of potential to really take off.

But it's also an idea that creates a new sovereignty and one that will
make the sovereignty of your OSU admins tiny in comparison.  The
question _will_ arise: what freedoms of access to computing and
network power will we have then?  A habit of thinking critically about
admin policies is a healthy one to start developing.....


-t