~misterio/IC

3d2ad2476ddbf831848d3cf917e3363ea61ce4dd — Gabriel Fontes 1 year, 8 months ago 04c35be
pequenas melhorias gramaticais
1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

M project/project.md
M project/project.md => project/project.md +31 -27
@@ 8,7 8,7 @@ Advisors: Dr. Elisa Yumi Nakagawa; Dr. Francisco José Monaco
**TODO**

**Keywords**: computer laboratory, configuration management, higher education,
learning environments
learning environments, free software

## 1. Introduction



@@ 20,9 20,9 @@ learning[1], particularly for students who can't afford a computer of their
own.

Building these environments are not simple tasks, however. Laboratories, like
most shared IT systems, can't be treated as trusted environments; thus must
have a high degree of protection and isolation, as to prevent users' actions
from compromising their peers safety and privacy.
most IT systems shared between people, can't be considered trusted
environments; they must have a high degree of protection and isolation, as to
prevent users' actions from compromising their peers' safety and privacy.

It is visible that administrators thus have to strike a careful balance between
user security and flexibility.


@@ 33,36 33,36 @@ tooling, and each class or subject might require completely different software
stacks.

These issues minimize the amount of tooling choices users have, and maximize
maintenance burden with constant installation requests.
maintenance burden with constant installation and update requests.

### 1.1 Existing solutions

Security usually requires denying superuser privileges to be denied to users.
Most computer operating systems do not natively support unprivileged software
management, forcing IT administrators to install and maintain a specific subset
of packages.
Security usually requires denying superuser privileges to users. Most computer
operating systems do not natively support unprivileged software management,
forcing IT administrators to handle installing and maintaining (a specific
subset of) packages.

All solutions boil down to some sort of isolation between different users'
state: be it enforced by the operational system, for example Microsoft's Active
Directory; or by lower level resources, such as virtual machines or
network-boot images.

Each of these bring different advantages and issues to laboratories, some
weren't even applied to this problem; through investigation and research is
required to provide the best possible solution.
haven't been applied to computer labs in literature; through investigation and
research is required to provide the best possible solution.

## 2. Objective

With this work, the author aims to research, build, and evaluate a computer lab
system that greatly increases user software freedom, as well as enforces tight
security and decreases IT management burden; even when compared to operating
systems with low flexibility.
system that will greatly increase user software freedom, as well as enforce
tight security and decrease IT management burden; simultaneously.

## 3. Methodology

This project will be worked on with a smaller scale laboratory, backed by
existing infrastructure provided by ICMC's Open Source Competence Center
existing infrastructure provided by ICMC's *Open Source Competence Center*
(CCOS), steered by the work's advisors; while involving contributions from the
Free and Open Source Extension Group (GELOS), whom the author is the current
*Free and Open Source Extension Group* (GELOS), whom the author is the current
student lead of.

Desirable side-effects from the partnership include: more exhaustive knowledge


@@ 70,14 70,15 @@ of technological options, exposing newer members to system configuration
practices, as well as helping develop the group's newly acquired physical
space.

Results will be measured by three benefit sets the solution must provide to its
users: software and workflow flexibility, safety and privacy, and universal
**Obs: faz sentido relatar isso?**

Results will be measured by three benefit groups the solution must provide to
its users: software and workflow flexibility, safety and privacy, and universal
ease of use.

Two main evaluation methods will be employed, as to correctly measure all
criteria: acceptance testing with different user groups, to evaluate workflows
and ease of use; as well as penetration testing to evaluate the system's
security.
Two main kinds of evaluation methods will be employed: acceptance testing with
different user groups, to evaluate workflows and ease of use; as well as
penetration testing to evaluate the system's security.

## 4. Case study and expected outcomes



@@ 85,12 86,12 @@ University of São Paulo's Institute of Math and Computer Sciences (ICMC/USP),
the executing institution, is currently facing a prime example of the problem.

Recently, due to ever higher maintenance burden, the IT team had no choice but
to decrease the amount of software offered: currently only Microsoft Windows is
to decrease the amount of software offered: making only Microsoft Windows
available to students, who previously could choose between it and Ubuntu Linux.

This situation affects classes that are better ministrated with Unix-like
systems, as well as students with a software preference. Making this a case
where software flexibility is severely limited.
systems, as well as students with (free) software preferences. Making this a
case where software flexibility is severely limited.

This project aims to research, design, and implement a solution that is both
more secure and flexible than any of the previous implemented at ICMC.


@@ 112,11 113,14 @@ A broad schedule is:
- About 2 months of study and evaluation of literature and existing solutions
- Between 2 and 3 months for implementing an initial version of the solution
- Between 2 and 3 months for evaluating and polishing the solution
- Between 2 and 4 months for writing and submitting the work **Faz sentido?**
- Between 2 and 4 months for writing and submitting the work

**Obs: Muito amplo?**
**Obs: Faz sentido? O último em especial.**

## References

**TODO: embasar afirmações com mais referências**

1. Newby, M & Fisher, D. _A Model of the Relationship between University
   Computer Laboratory Environment and Student Outcomes_. Learning Environments
   Research, 2000.