Newsgroups: aus.religion,aus.religion.christian
Subject: humour - the existence of System Administrators
Date: 7 May 1998 13:56:29 GMT
From:  (Danny Yee)

>                    The Existance of System Administrators
>                                       
>    Given that there is a lot of discussion about whether or not our LAN
>    really does have a System Administrator, and given that no empirical
>    evidence of the existence or non-existence of the System Administrator
>    is extant, I thought it would be helpful to have a frank and open
>    discussion about the issues surrounding the concept.
>    
>    Here are some popular arguments:
>    
>     Argument from Design:
>     
>     1. One looks at a simple computer, and sees evidence of intelligent
>        design.
>     2. One looks at a Sun Sparc 20 and... um... well... Okay, One looks
>        at a DEC Alpha and sees evidence of intelligent design.
>     3. It is therefore likely that something created them.
>     4. One looks at the network and sees evidence of intelligent design.
>     5. It is therefore likely that something created it. That something
>        is the System Administrator.
>        
>     Counter-argument:
>     
>     1. If you think the network implies intelligent design, you haven't
>        seen *our* network.
>     2. Even assuming this proves the existence of a System Administrator,
>        there's no evidence the System Administrator is intelligent.
>    _________________________________________________________________
>    
>     First Causes argument:
>     
>     1. When my computer comes on, it is because I turned it on. My
>        computer cannot turn itself on.
>     2. When I turn my computer on and connect to the network, the network
>        is already there waiting for me.
>     3. I know I did not activate the network.
>     4. Therefore, something must have caused the network to exist.
>     5. That something could be the Router, but then what installed the
>        Router?
>     6. That something must be the System Administrator.
>        
>     Counter-argument:
>     
>     1. So what caused the System Administrator?
>     2. Still doesn't prove the System Administrator is intelligent.
>    _________________________________________________________________
>    
>     The Argument from Popularity:
>     
>     1. Almost everyone believes that the System Administrator exists.
>        Those who don't believe He exists are in the minority.
>     2. Many respected people claim to have received email from Him.
>     3. In almost any company since the dawn of the Computer Age, there
>        has been some form of System Administrator myth.
>     4. Given the universality of the myths, it is unlikely that such
>        myths are not based on truth.
>        
>     Counter-argument:
>     
>     1. Most users are clueless morons who need to believe in the Great
>        Benevolent Super-User, and that He protects and watches over their
>        data.
>     2. So who's to say it's the System Admin that HR claims to have
>        hired? Why not Brian Kernighan or Cliff Stoll, or Zeus, or Thor or
>        any other such mythical creature?
>    _________________________________________________________________
>    
>     The Argument from Authority:
>     
>     1. Management insists that the System Administrator exists.
>         Specifically:
>          1. HR insists that they hired Him
>          2. Accounting claims to have PO's signed by Him
>          3. MIS has the The Big Book of Documentation, written by Him or
>             His disciples.
>        
>     Counter-argument:
>     
>     1. Since when has Management known what they were doing?
>     2. Using the Big Book of Documentation as proof that the BBoD was
>        written by the System Administrator is circular. It could be a
>        fabrication.
>    _________________________________________________________________
>    
>     The Cartesian Argument:
>     
>     1. No user can create a more Super account than he himself possesses.
>     2. No user can grant greater system privileges than he himself
>        possesses.
>     3. All users have heard of the root account, and that the root
>        account is omnipotent and possesses all privileges.
>     4. Since the concept of the root account is greater than the accounts
>        possessed by the users, the users cannot have created the concept
>        of the root account. Therefore the concept of the root account
>        must come from something that possesses those privileges.
>     5. There is an entry for 'root' in /etc/passwd.
>     6. The root account can only have been created by the Super User, the
>        System Administrator.
>        
>     Counter-argument:
>     
>     1. Statement 1 is a dubious premise.
>     2. The existence of the root account is not proof that anyone ever
>        logs into that account.
>     3. Still doesn't prove that the System Admin is intelligent.
>    _________________________________________________________________
>    
>     The Ontological Proof:
>     
>     1. Given: The property of existence is more Super than the property
>        of non-existence.
>     2. The SysAdmin is defined as "a user, than which no more Super user
>        can be conceived".
>     3. No matter how great a Super User you can conceive which possesses
>        the property of non-existence, you can then add the property of
>        existence and make the Super User even more Super.
>     4. Therefore, the System Administrator exists.
>        
>     Counter-argument:
>     
>     1. Rests on a dubious definition of what is and is not Super.
>     2. The concept of a Super User is nowhere near analogous to the Super
>        User itself. I can conceive of something, but that's only the
>        concept of it, not the thing itself.
>    _________________________________________________________________
>    
>     The Spinozist Argument:
>     
>     1. The System Administrator is defined as the most perfect user
>        possible.
>     2. The property of necessary existence means that anything which
>        possesses it must necessarily exist.
>     3. If existence is better than non-existence (see the ontological
>        proof), then necessary existence is better still.
>     4. Any perfect user must possess the property of necessary existence.
>     5. Therefore the System Administrator must necessarily exist.
>        
>     However:
>     
>     1. Being perfect, the System Administrator cannot make mistakes,
>        delete the wrong account, trash the root directory, mess up a tape
>        load, etc.
>     2. Being perfect, the System Administrator can not be capable of
>        goal-directed action, because such action would imply that the
>        network is somehow less than perfect in its current state.
>     3. Therefore, the System Administrator is really more of a force of
>        nature within the system.
>     4. Arguably, then the System Administrator *is* the system itself.
>        
>     Counter-argument:
>     
>     1. None, since the System Administrator has been defined to the point
>        where it is a totally useless concept, there's no point in
>        arguing.
>        
>    At least this resolves one of the major issues: the Spinozist argument
>    proves that *if* the System Administrator does exist, it cannot be
>    intelligent.
>    
>                   ---Article reposted from talk.atheism---
>                         --- Author was Andy Gray---
>