If you think a question won't be useful to anyone, downvote. If you don't like a question, just move on. Of course, nothing compels you to answer a question. Why the administrator doesn't cooperate is irrelevant - they may be on vacation, or overworked, or incompetent - so you shouldn't judge the question on this basis. All we need to know to answer this question is: the system is RHEL, the user is not root (and can't get the administrator to do it), and what happens when the user tried to install Screen manually (“I tried to install, but failed.” is not enough information, which is why the question in question should be closed). Someone else may have exactly the same question in a different context which has no moral implication.Īsking how to install Screen is certainly not an unreasonable question. But this certainty comes from context, it is not intrinsic in the question. Very occasionally we get a question where it is actually clear that the asker is up to no good. The other reason why you shouldn't worry about “breaking rules”, or at least not close or flag on this basis, is that answers are for everyone, not just for the original asker. Calling someone “antisocial” because they want to install Screen?) This is not nice, and being nice is not just a good idea, it's a rule!īe welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions. You're assuming bad faith on the part of the asker. Logging in, and using Screen, could also be useful to monitor jobs executed via the scheduler. There is quite a leap of faith between “I want to install Screen” and “I want to bypass the job scheduler to run my jobs ahead of other people”. You have no way to know whether this is true. One reason is that the assertion that the user wants to “break local rule” is an assumption on your part. There are two reasons why you shouldn't worry about “breaking rules”. ![]() If it's very overt and they are unrepentant, flag for moderator attention. Tl dr: If someone is being antisocial, downvote and comment. The former question should be answered, but with a preface to the effect of "Please only reset the password if it's either your personal server, or you're the authorized person to do so. The technical answer would be the same, but the latter question should be downvoted to oblivion and remain unanswered. "My co-worker is away for two days and I have physical access to the Linux server in his cubicle how can I reset the root password?"."I'm locked out of my Linux server how can I reset the root password?".We can't prevent black hats from ignoring that advice and misusing the provided information (not in an online setting, anyway), but we can withhold information when the questioner is overtly defying the laws/rules.Ī simple example to illustrate this is the difference between the two (invented) questions: We can advise not to put it to black-hat use. ![]() ![]() We can provide know-how if it has any valid white-hat use. If the asker clearly states his intention of breaking the rules or breaking the laws, do not help. If the asker's intentions are unclear (or if the answer you're giving could be abused), preface your answer with a disclaimer and admonition to follow the rules. If there is a valid general question, you can and should answer it. ![]() In general I would say do not assist someone to break local rules or laws. I believe the key to the situation is that Stack Exchange is not geared to handle individuals, but individuals' questions, with a preference for questions applicable to many people. I'm also the person who, once upon a time, asked question 209398, which may not be entirely surprising. I'm asking as someone actually using one of those compute clusters, and has to live with people running jobs outside of the queuing system. Or, posing the question more generally: Should we help people to be antisocial? My question: What's the course of action when someone wants help with breaking a local rule, in this case using a node in a cluster interactively even though they are not supposed to? Flagging for moderator intervention? Help them solve the issue at hand? Do we care? I commented that maybe he should ask his system administrator about why this was so, and he replied that they weren't supposed to run interactive sessions on these nodes, and how would he solve this without involving the admin? His problem is that on this particular node, screen is not installed. In the comments to question 299123 (now on hold for being too broad), the user makes it clear that he wants to log onto a node in a cluster and use screen.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |