> IT never wants anyone to run servers except them (and to some extent I > agree, an un-administered server is a hacker playground, which is not just > that dept's problem). It's the things that FCRC does that IT (specifically > tech support) wants to do that I surmise is causing friction (and I could go > on and on about why I think that is). Perhaps what needs to be done is to > show IT that it doesn't want to do the things the FCRC does. I know you > wouldn't want to do this, but perhaps sharing administrative access to the > servers would appease IT? This is essentially giving root to Paul or Mike, > how terrible would that be? I don't have a problem with that at all. I think the problem though is that IT doesn't consider anyone else to be competent of running servers. That's obviously a problem, since IT will refuse to run servers for certain necessary services. It's ridiculous. > P.S. Neil/John, I know you guys must play with bigger drives than I do, > which of the journalling FS's for Linux would you say is more ready for > prime time? I'm thinking of deploying ext3 for these 20GB drives. I *think* ReiserFS is more mature. I haven't tried either one though. Biggest drive I've got is 16.8, and you think I'm gonna mess with it? :) John -- # John Madden weez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ICQ: 2EB9EA # Sys-Admin / Webmaster, Avenir Web: http://avenir.dhs.org # LANdb: Network Admin Database - http://avenir.dhs.org/landb/ # COMP: Computers & Internet discussion - http://avenir.dhs.org/mailing.html # Linux, Apache, Perl and C: All the best things in life are Free!