"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ujGMtzl1IHA.5832@xxxxxx
Quote:
> Dave R. wrote: Quote:
>>
>>
>> We are trying to put into place a concept of a "System Maintainer" -
>> someone who can handle many aspects of system maintenance, but
>> doesn't have the keys to the kingdom as it were.
>
>
> Part of the problem is that, for some reason, you're mistakenly
> thinking of Chkdsk as some sort of routine maintenance tool. No, I'm not. I'm thinking that *some* aspects of system administration
can be handled by *some* users who have *some*, but not all, of the
rights/privileges of system administrators.
Quote:
> It isn't. It's designed to find and correct problems with the hard
> drive (limited, to be sure) and the file system.
I'm fully aware of chkdsk's purpose and usage, thanks.
Quote:
> It has no preventative value, at all.
I'm not looking for "preventative value".
Quote:
> All it's routine periodic use would do is unnecessarily increase the
> wear and tear on the hard drives.
First, I'm not looking for it to be used "periodically" or "routinely".
Second, if you actually believe this, then you have no idea how a hard
drive functions. That's like saying "the routine periodic reading of
data from hard drives unnecessarily increases the wear and tear on the
hard drives."
Quote:
> And granting ordinary (or even power users)
I'm not looking to give "ordinary" users, or "power users", this
ability. You should stop trying to divine my intent as you are
consistently making incorrect assumptions.
Quote:
> the ability to alter the very foundation on which the OS,
> applications, and data rests is very much granting the "keys to the
> kingdom."
No, it is granting *a* key to *one part* of the kingdom. A key that I
trust certain users to have. What is it about this that bothers you so
much?
Regards,
Dave