| 1 |
On 14 Nov 2009, at 20:46, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
>> ... |
| 3 |
>> You are right of course, but in this particular case the guy who pays |
| 4 |
>> wants to have root access. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> And you agreed to work like that? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So when he fucks things up good royal and proper, will he gladly |
| 9 |
> accept his |
| 10 |
> shafting and pay you more to undo it? Or will he do the usual |
| 11 |
> customer stunt |
| 12 |
> and blame you? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
My typical experience is that the customer will take it completely on |
| 15 |
the chin and pay me to fix the problems. That doesn't make foul-ups |
| 16 |
due to such unnecessary meddling any less frustrating, though. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I only work under one of two conditions: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I am root and the customer is not. |
| 21 |
> The customer is root and I am not. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This is clearly the "right" way to operate, however it can be |
| 24 |
extremely difficult to walk away from your largest-paying contract, |
| 25 |
just because the owner sees this particular issue differently. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
One has to hope, really, that the client only wants the root password |
| 28 |
as insurance in case you get run over by a bus, and won't use it to |
| 29 |
arbitrarily mess about on the system. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Stroller. |
Archives