If there is any sort of leg work or information gathering we can do as a group for Kevin I think we should all band together (regardless of differences) and try to assist him in developing his project. By us showing unity and adequate support for our fellow geeks, we develop a more friendly environment for L/OSS (Linux/Open Source Software) to flourish in.
Kevin's road to success here makes ALL or our battles in the future easier to win. I don't know much about Linux or red hat for that matter, but I WILL PERSONALLY through up the offer for any sort of assistance I can. I know Kevin and I have had problems in the past, but I am willing to overlook those differences for the greater good...the promotion and propagation of L/OSS. Kevin...feel free to contact me offline if I can be of any help. I am awesome at researching and have told I have a great gift for gab...promotions, selling, marketing, PR wise. Regards, Cameron -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Anderson [mailto:list-server@;myrealbox.com] Sent: October 31, 2002 9:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (clug-talk) <rant> They need to approve it before it ever begins. And if I'm going to implement what is an unknown commodity for this new company (We're being sold, remember, so past success means nothing. They have zero experience with Linux. I already checked.) If I make a fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants proposal, then I'll look like an idiot, AND I'll get shot down. Realistically, I also won't be very likely to get a second try with it either. They're a pure NT shop. We've already been told 99% that Exchange WILL BE our mail solution. On the other hand, if my presentation is complete, and addresses all of their concerns and needs, and then I implement it, and complete everything on schedule, or ahead, then the solution looks good, and so do I. I'll win where I can, and grow Linux from there. I can wait for a pure network. Time has always shown that Linux is better, faster, and less expensive. In a few years, when Mail needs to be replaced, I'll bring up Linuxes successes. If there are no successes, then I have nothing to build on. Plus, the company will be that much more dependant on legacy MS products. I will cave to everything management wants so that Linux gets a foot in the door. An arrogant attitude on my part won't get it there. I'm arrogant, believe me, but telling a manager to "I'll give you what I want to give you, and you'll shut up and like it" won't get me anywhere. Kev. ----- Original Message ----- From: "S�bastien Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 8:52 PM Subject: Re: (clug-talk) <rant> Ugh, does management need to read your installation documentation? I doubt it. Le Jeudi, 31 octo 2002, � 20:27 Canada/Mountain, Kevin Anderson a �crit : > Ummm. I missed something somewhere. The distros are all pretty much > equal > if you want them to be. But that's a technical perspective. > > My concern is selling this to people who are NOT technical. Debian > doesn't > have the MIND SHARE that Red Hat does. And like it or not, that's a > big > part of my battle. It's hard enough to have people accept Linux. > They've > heard of Red Hat. IBM does Red Hat. Nobody has heard of Gentoo or > Debian, > at least not at the management level. Which is the level that > technical > installs are approved or vetoed at. > > I want my documentation to read "Install red Hat from cd. Select All > packages. You're done" > > I do not want it to read. > > "Install <whatever flavor> download patches for X, Y, and Q. Apply > them > against the kernel. Run menuconfig, and choose this list of 175 > options to > compile into the kernel, and this list of 50 others to compile as > modules. > Compile the kernel. Compile the modules. Copy bzImage to /boot. > Update > LILO/GRUB. etc, etc, etc..." > > One sounds complete. One shounds like a patchwork of pieces that sort > of > work. *I* know otherwise, but you don't need to climb the food chain > very > far from <hands-on IT Admin title of choice> before this is a hopeless > sale. > > Documentation should not exceed 2 pages per application. And if it > strays > more than 2 commands from "click next", the sale is going to fail. > > Kev. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cade Cairns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:48 AM > Subject: Re: (clug-talk) <rant> > > >> oops.. didnt mean to put that forth in a belittling way. sorry. >> >> Regards, >> Cade Cairns >> >> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Cade Cairns wrote: >> >>> Of course. It's not like Debian is missing features that RedHat >>> has.. > I'm >>> quite amused that you think that, though. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Cade Cairns >>> >>> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Kevin Anderson wrote: >>> >>>> If I have a document to management that says something like "Then > rebuild >>>> the kernel, enabling extended attributes, etc" >>>> >>>> They'll ask "wouldn't XP be easier and faster?" >>>> or >>>> "Could you explain this to use so that we understand what is > happening, and >>>> why?" >>>> or >>>> "Does this mean that Red Hat 8 is unable to meet our needs?" >>>> etc... >>>> >>>> >>>> I chose Red Hat because management will have heard of it. It's way > easier >>>> to say "I need $100 to purchase a licensed copy of Red Hat" than to > get >>>> approval to "purchase a dozen pizza vouchers for Canberra's LUG". >>>> And > with >>>> me wanting to avoid the need to recompile the kernel, does Debian > REALLY fit >>>> this scenario well? If I'm going a non-Red Hat route, it'll be > Gentoo. And >>>> that seems more likely with every passing minute. The main reason I > skipped >>>> Gentoo before is that 1.2 doesn't seem to work with Compaq's > SmartArray RAID >>>> Controllers. I'd assume 1.4 does, but I'd also like to see it > released >>>> rather than running an RC version. >>>> >>>> Kev. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "timmy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:24 AM >>>> Subject: Re: (clug-talk) <rant> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And I don't want to rebuild the kernel, cause that sort of > documentation >>>>>> just blows. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand this statement. Which documentation are you > referring >>>> to? Do you need help with regards on how to compile a kernel from > scratch? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >>
