Linux-Advocacy Digest #516, Volume #25 Sun, 5 Mar 00 19:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Salary? (Peter Morris)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("LP")
Re: Giving up on NT ("LP")
Re: A Look on Open Source from the other side... (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (5X3)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (5X3)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Navindra Umanee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Morris)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 23:55:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK fairness, but if you're happy with what you get, does it matter if
everyone is getting more than you. It only does when you find out.
That's a problem. I was quite happy earning my hourly rate, even
finding that some, doing the same job for the same length of time were
on more. It's all what you can bid for. They bid higher and got it.
Some even GP£10/hr more!
Good on 'em I say.
PAM.
__________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 1. Charge what you think you're worth in that job. US$20/hr? US$40/hr?
>> What? If you feel quite happy getting US$15/hr and then find that
>> you're being undervalued in this position as everyone is earning more
>> than you, I expect you'd be a little miffed. Am I right? And yet you
>> were quite happy to accept the US$15/hr in the first place. People are
>> so greedy.
>
>
>It's not so much a question of greed; merely fairness. I've been in
>the position before where I got hired on at a wage, then discovered
>a few months down the road that someone that does an inferior job
>(by my estimation and management's appraisals) was hired on at - and
>was continuing to make - significantly more than what I was making.
>So no, not greed exactly. I just don't want to repeat that sort of
>rude slap in the face through naivety.
>
>
>> Having said that I'd guess that as you've left school and it's an
>> admin job I'd go for about GB£20K which would be about US$30K which
>> works out at about ....oh dear, US$10.27/hr. Perhaps I have my sums
>> wrong.
>
>Doing some quick math, that works out to around $14.50/hr assuming
>$30,000 gross annual income, 40 hours a week. I was thinking low- to
>mid-thirties, but if sysadmins are routinely making $45k+ I'd feel
>like I low-balled myself (doing the same work for less pay). Hence
>my inquiry.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 6 Mar 2000 00:00:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89mbim$1n6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Ever get 2 DirectX games running on NT at once?
>>
>> > sure, what's the big deal? UT and TA - one minimized while the other is
>> > running... yawn...
>>
>> No. Both running AT THE SAME TIME. Not one "minimized". Both sharing
> the
>> same console at the same time, accessing the same hardware, both running,
>> both being played.
>>
>> Because thats the equivalent of two X servers accessing the same hardware
>> at the same time.
> Yes, take your pick, one minimized and one full screen (how else could it
> be)
Exactly. "how else could it be" is both using the same root console at
the same time, which is what breaks.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 6 Mar 2000 00:02:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be useless,
> I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
> on two screens really provide?
More evidence that youve never actually used linux. Exactly how stupid
do you wish to appear?
Because at this point, its generally the case that pretty much everyone
you're talking to thinks you're a pinhead.
> <grin>
> That's my below-the-belt Linux punch for today, since ya'll seem so eager
> with your unfounded below-the-belt Windows punches =)
Which you havent even begun to debunk.
p0ok
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:04:46 GMT
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 00:40:43 GMT, "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:06:03 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> >If you're careful about the hardware you choose and which drivers you install,
> >> >you will never have a problem, like me.
> >>
> >> Drivers certainly help, but to say that if you're careful about the
> >> hardware and the drivers and you'll never have a problem is
> >> complete and utter horse-shit.
> >>
> >> Machine config: Dell machine, Intel CPU, Adaptec 2940UW,
> >> STB video card. All hardware is on the HCL, all drivers are WHQ Labs
> >> qualified. SP5
> >>
> >> Did it BSOD'd often? No. Can I say that I never had a problem? No.
> >> I had 2 crashes in 6 months or so. I couldn't get SP6a working well
> >> (crash after crash after crash) so I reinstalled NT clean (formatted)
> >> and then installed SP6a. It's been working great ever since, but it's
> >> only been about 1 month since I did that.
> >
> >Well, your point only re-iterates the point that if you are not careful..
> >you'll have problems. SP6 is specifically not recommended for the
> >Dell hardware drivers. By reinstalling NT, you've flushed the OEM files..
> >of course, you'll probably find a small, ( but measurable ) degredation
> >in your disk cache.
>
> Utter bullshit... the "Dell hardware drivers" had been flushed long
> ago in a previous installation of NT because the computer came
> with Win98 pre-installed.
Well then, you are using drivers that are not written for the specific hardware that
you are running.
You are using drivers written for the retail versions of the hardware, which many
times ARE different.
> In case it's still not clear enough for you, the drivers were not the
> Dell installed drivers. They all came from the respective websites
> and were WHQ Labs Certified.
"the respective websites" for Dell OEM equipment would be from Dell. If you used the
retail versions for OEM products, you live
with the consequences of using them. For example, if you have the Dell GeForce
videocard, the nVidia drivers are NOT WHQ Labs
certified for that card.
> Now that we've gotten that out of the way... do you have a cite for
> the "SP6 is specifically not recommended for the Dell hardware
> drivers" comment and the "degradation in your disk cache"
> comment? What in the world are you talking about?
www.dell.com
You'll notice that they only offer SP4 and SP5 installs on all their NT4.0 systems.
You can find documentation pertaining to the installation of SP's on their systems as
well.
Your post merely illustrates the possible problem of using drivers from one vender,
which are not written for the particular
hardware you are using. You may, or you may not have any problems. It's a crap shoot.
But don't whine and piss about losing that
bet.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:04:47 GMT
Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <e2iw4.186$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "LP"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Mike Timbol wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In case anyone actually cares, the reason for this (on Windows) is
> > > > that
> > > > the 256 colors are not a fixed set of colors -- programs are allowed
> > > > to
> > > > change the color palette to something more suitable to their needs.
> > > >
> > > > In general, there are 16 "fixed" colors, which are supposed to be the
> > > > same in any color palette. These are the colors that are usually
> > > > used
> > > > for the icons.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure how the Mac works, because there's no guarantee that the
> > > > 256 colors in one icon are going to be the same 256 colors used in
> > > > the
> > > > other icons. On the other hand, maybe the 256 colors on the Mac are
> > > > fixed, and can't be changed, which means all the icons *would* use
> > > > the same palette.
> > >
> > > Icons can use any 256 colors, and they are displayed using their
> > > closest
> > > approximation with the colors available on the current palette.
> >
> > "their closest approximation with teh colors available on the current
> > palette".
> >
> > You mean displayed incorrectly.
>
> What do you want? The correct colors aren't available. Oh, you want
> icons limited to 16 colors and those colors reserved in the palette so
> that the palette in turn is limited to 240 colors instead of 256, which
> makes whatever used that palette even less correct than before.
No, what I'ld do is if I had to work on such an obsolete peice of trash is to junk it,
and buy a real computer.
------------------------------
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Look on Open Source from the other side...
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:31:03 GMT
"Clark Pacheco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well this is an interesting view on open source from the other side of the
> fence....
> http://www.devshed.com/Talk/BrainDump/OS_YNot/
>
> Here's some high lights...
>
> <!--Cut-->
> But they're looking at it from the wrong point of view. Open Source has
> significant drawbacks for commercial software vendors, because at the lowest
> level it virtually guarantees easy piracy of the product.
So? I wouldn't care at all whether I pirate a binary copy or a source
copy of something. A binary copy would in fact be better, no need to
compile it. Piracy is doing rather well without source I hear.
> I'm not saying that no-one should release anything Open Source. There's
> definitely a place for open source. What I'm saying is that there is not and
> should not be any obligation to do so.
Nobody sane says there is such an obligation. There are special cases
like crypto where one either provides source or is just not trustworthy.
No obligation there either, you just lose by definition if you don't
provide source.
> I think the problem is that most of the people making these suggestions have
> a very concrete understanding of their own situation and of the benefits for
> them in an Open Source release of something that they use or would like to
> use, but only a very vague understanding of the actual situation and effects
> this would have on the producer of the software.
>
> The Open Source advocate knows how expensive the product is, and that's real
> money from his pocket flowing out.
Right.
> But it seems as if the conceptual model ends at the point where the money is
> received at the corporation, as if it somehow vanishes into a black hole at
> that point.
For all I know it does. I don't get any detailed reports from companies
I buy products from as to what they do with the money I pay them. Or
should I just trust companies to do The Right Thing (tm) with the money?
> Or perhaps they have this image of it flowing into the wallet of
> some fat-cat corporate executive (or worse, fat-cat stock holders, who "of
> course" are scum).
It doesn't (at least some of it)? I'm surprised. There I am, fantasizing
all the time that corporate executives get paid for their work too.
Actually I always thought they get paid rather a lot but probably that
is just not true.
> But that's not the case. Those corporations have real expenses and that
> money is used to pay them. Without that income, the corporation can't exist.
> (And virtually all of these corporations pay no stock dividends.)
Any stats on that? Most corporations existing for a significant time do
turn a profit or at least break even, at least that is what I was
taught about how the system works.
All this has nothing to do with Open Source. Open Source != gratis.
Everyone can write anything they like into a license as long as it is
legally OK.
I got lots of source code from MS, this doesn't mean I can do everything
I would like with it. I got even more source code under the GPL and
again I can only do with it what the license allows me to do.
> People are talking about Red Hat, for instance, as a big Open Source success
> story. They went public, their stock went through the roof, the founders are
> now wealthy beyonds the dreams of avarice, and they now have a market cap
> above $13 billion dollars (as of 2/10/2000).
>
> But now that they're publicly traded, we can examine their books in the cold
> hard light of their SEC filings. Here's the most recent one, as this is
> written:
>
> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1087423/0000912057-00-001361.txt
>
> Someday, somehow, someway, this corporation is actually going to have to
> make a profit. A big one. Continuously. For a long time.
Yes, of course. And?
> It sure hasn't happened yet.
>
> <!--Cut-->
>
> Yes, I know that IBM has released JFS to Open Source. Yes, I know that id
> released the source to Quake. Yes, I know that Netscape released the source
> to Communicator. Yes, I know all about Corel.
>
> But you don't see IBM releasing the source to AIX or ViaVoice, or id
But Sun releasing the code to Solaris (hmm, is it actually available
yet?). Just like IBM they actually make money on hardware and services,
so AIX code is not entirely out of the question.
> releasing the source to Quake III Arena. And Netscape hasn't released their
> server code. What all of them are giving away (which is what it amounts to)
> is things they no longer care about. In the case of id, it was more an
> acknowledgement of reality than anything else, because the source to Quake
> had been stolen and was out in the world already. In the case of Netscape,
> they went open source on Communicator about the time they gave up on trying
> to make any money selling browsers.
>
> You haven't seen any corporation give away the source to one of their crown
> jewels yet, unless they were legally obligated to do so (as is the case with
> Red Hat). And you're not going to anytime soon.
Who knows?
> As to Corel, it has been bleeding money for years, as Michael Cowpland has
> frantically floundered around trying one thing after another to try to turn
> the company around. Embracing open source is his latest miracle cure for
> Corel's chronic losses. It's an act of desperation. It remains to be seen
> whether it will work any better than the last five things he tried.
> (Cowpland's job is on the line; he's facing a stockholder revolt, and has
> been perilously close to being fired for mismanaging the company.)
>
> <!--Cut-->
>
> "Revenue" is not a dirty word, and neither is "Profit". There's nothing
> immoral about selling software. Doing so employs people. There is no
> obligation to put anything into Open Source.
There is no such obligation. Nobody sane pretends otherwise.
> If someone wants to do that voluntarily, more power to them. But don't
> demand, or even suggest, that someone do so unless you can show them how it
> benefits them directly, immediately, personally.
Hmm. Benefit does not always mean money.
> Eric Raymond (a major proponent of open source) said it best:
>
> "Either open source is a net win for both producers and consumers on pure
> self-interest grounds or it is not. If it is, you cannot lose; if it is not
> you cannot (and should not) win."
Not a single word about money here which appears to be the focus of the
cited article.
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 6 Mar 2000 00:06:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:06:06 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >And of those bugs that Microsoft knows exists, this calendar business
>> >was one of the immediate bugs they had to fix.
>> >
>> >Does that tell you anything? (It should tell you that those 20+K bugs are
>> >so minor and irrelevant that the general popualtion, and even special
>> >users will probably never see them).
>>
>> Quota limits can be bypassed is another. Create as many 0 byte
>> files as you'd like --- the quota limit won't stop you. Now you simply
>> append bytes (736 max) to the existing 0 byte files and use up all the
>> disk space.
> Yeah, this one will have to be dealt with, but it's unlikely that
> someone on the local LAN will start doing things like this.
> It's not a remoteable exploit of any kind.
>> While the window of opportunity is admittedly small, during the
>> installation process anyone can connect to the ADMIN$ share
>> as ADMINISTRATOR and no password is required. The vulnerability
>> exists until the you've entered a password for the Administrator
>> account AND you've rebooted.
> Yes, this is another "problem" to be dealt with.
Hahahahaa...
And how long has this operating system been in release?
Its not doing very well so far, to be quite honest. How many thousands
of times are you going to apologize for "minor bugs" that exist in
your operating system before you finally decide that somewhere out there
may lay a better choice?
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 6 Mar 2000 00:07:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:17:13 GMT,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Quota limits can be bypassed is another. Create as many 0 byte
>> Yeah, this one will have to be dealt with, but it's unlikely that
>> someone on the local LAN will start doing things like this.
>> It's not a remoteable exploit of any kind.
> So only remotely exploitable bugs are serious? Then I know why
> Windows usually does *not* have a telnet server running, for
> example. Must remember your argumentation.
Did you forget? NT's C2 certification does not allow networked
connections. Any bug in windows2000 (which of course could allow
the same certification, as chad has said a couple of dozen times)
which would be remotely exploitable doesnt count and therefore
wont be mentioned.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:09:48 GMT
Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And in as far does that constitute a proof for a library problem
> instead of a proof for shoddy coding which happens to work
> sometimes under some libraries? There are binary packages out
> there that manage ...
Fine.
[asimov] [/tmp] scp redhat6.1box:/bin/ls .
ls | 48 KB | 2.7 kB/s | ETA: 00:00:00 | 100%
[asimov] [/tmp] ldd ls
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40017000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
[asimov] [/tmp] ./ls
Segmentation fault
Exit 139
>> All of this makes the TCO(MT) of Linux boxes significantly higher.
>
> man source_code
Huh?
-N.
--
"These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After unzipping,
these files can be viewed in any text editor, including all versions of
Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer." [Microsoft website]
< http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~navindra/editors/ >
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
