8 ms·

If someone started installing packages on my server willy nilly I would be very angry. Servers are a personal thing. Furthermore, it is downright unprofession

If someone started installing packages on my server willy nilly I would be very angry. Servers are a personal thing. Furthermore, it is downright unprofessional to be tinkering with other people's servers if they did not ask you for help!

brudgers 11y ago
To me, concerns oriented toward authorization and general security would offer a more objective and policy based framework for the discussion. The zeitgeist is servers are cattle not pets and that deploying chaos monkeys helps insure robust infrastructure.
- tamana 11y ago
  Yes, I never make dumb mistakes, I am a living walking integration resiliency test :-)
jimbokun 11y ago
"Servers are a personal thing." If you are paying for the servers out of your own personal funds, sure. But if it belongs to the company employing you, no, it's not a personal thing, it's a corporate thing.
- humbleMouse 11y ago
  I suppose "personal" might not have been the best word to describe this. What I meant to convey is that Servers are a fragile highly configured entity. It doesn't matter if the server in question is in a corporate environment or if it's your "personal" server - you don't want junior people editing configurations.
cdubzzz 11y ago
Are we talking professional or personal here? You seem to be jumping between the two. A server purchased for your work is not _your_ server. It is a company asset. If you buy a server for yourself and your little brother messes with it, go ahead and get mad and lash out. If your business has procured a new asset, you are tasked with managing it and someone else gets in your way (junior or not), deal with it like a professional.
skewart 11y ago
I think he was talking about a work system that the senior dev was mostly responsible for, not the senior dev's personal server. I completely disagree with the idea that a work box should ever "belong" to someone. Cattle not pets, man.

brudgers 11y ago

To me, concerns oriented toward authorization and general security would offer a more objective and policy based framework for the discussion. The zeitgeist is servers are cattle not pets and that deploying chaos monkeys helps insure robust infrastructure.

tamana 11y ago
Yes, I never make dumb mistakes, I am a living walking integration resiliency test :-)

jimbokun 11y ago

"Servers are a personal thing." If you are paying for the servers out of your own personal funds, sure. But if it belongs to the company employing you, no, it's not a personal thing, it's a corporate thing.

humbleMouse 11y ago
I suppose "personal" might not have been the best word to describe this. What I meant to convey is that Servers are a fragile highly configured entity. It doesn't matter if the server in question is in a corporate environment or if it's your "personal" server - you don't want junior people editing configurations.

cdubzzz 11y ago

Are we talking professional or personal here? You seem to be jumping between the two. A server purchased for your work is not _your_ server. It is a company asset. If you buy a server for yourself and your little brother messes with it, go ahead and get mad and lash out. If your business has procured a new asset, you are tasked with managing it and someone else gets in your way (junior or not), deal with it like a professional.

skewart 11y ago

I think he was talking about a work system that the senior dev was mostly responsible for, not the senior dev's personal server. I completely disagree with the idea that a work box should ever "belong" to someone. Cattle not pets, man.