Linux-Advocacy Digest #556, Volume #25 Wed, 8 Mar 00 06:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Salary? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
my .02 on linux (David Little)
Re: Salary? (Bill Unruh)
Re: Salary? (Desmond Coughlan)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Disproving the lies. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Giving up on NT - So Where's The Emotion? (Dr Yassam)
Re: my .02 on linux (Edward Rosten)
Re: Drestin Black = Village Idiot (Edward Rosten)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Warren Young)
Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses (Edward Rosten)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Warren Young)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Warren Young)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 08:11:52 GMT
Okay, to paraphrase the threads here, I should be asking $45 -
$1,000,000. They should throw in a car that gets really good gas
mileage, and a house, unless I was willing to settle for a small yacht
and microwave internet feed...
=)
Seriously, though. Am I nuts for considering a $35,000 starting
salary, straight out of college, for a position that:
a) appears be closer to the 40 hrs/wk than the 80+ extreme
b) will put me in a position to learn Solaris and Cisco on top
of my Linux background
c) could very well turn out to be my 'dream' job opportunity
(a marriage, of sorts, of the two things that I dive into most
passionately - a career out of my hobbies of choice and academic
area of study, more or less).
I have 4 years of Linux experience, but no real "on-the-job" Linux
experience (unless you count the frenetic, chaotic, haphazard and
half-assed environment of a pre-launch privately funded Internet
startup).
I won't say it's what I had my fingers crossed for. But I've done
the math; I can certainly live comfortably on what they're offering,
and to my thinking the pluses outweigh a simple dollars-and-sense
figure (quality of life and quality of work over a few extra bucks
at the end of the month).
Or am I being naive?
=)
Yours,
Robert Nichols
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: David Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: my .02 on linux
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 02:25:14 -0800
I've been running redhat linux on my packard bell p133 as a web/ftp
(serving 30 gigs a day) server for about 6 months now and have tried rh
6.1 on my personal computer. Just wanted to share some of my thoughts...
1. Linux is *perfect* the web/ftp server for a POS comp. It's pretty
easy to set up/run (using apache and proftpd)- and is stable on one of
the shittiest conp's ever. I can run everything through the terminal
(ssh), freeing up the need for a monitor, and lotsa memory.
2. However, I had a pretty crappy experience using linux as a desktop
OS. I've also used KDE, and found that to be a rather slow window
manager, too. GNOME is nowhere ready to replace windows...win2k is much
more stable and faster than rh/gnome-- although I do like the idea that
even if X crashes the OS doesn't go with it. Windowmaker is good, but
not as featured as the others. Even with my novice/intermediate
knowledge of linux, I had problems getting sound/video/USB mouse to
work. Also, the apps are just not there. I would be pretty overwhelmed
if I was a complete newbie to linux.
3. I do plan on trying linux again this fall, when the 2.4
kernel/distro's is all done and stable. I have to admit that I'm
probably just more conftorable with the windows UI, but isn't *almost*
everyone? I believe that for linux to suceed on the desktop, it has to
have a windows-like or easier UI, or else very few will bother to
switch.
Just my little .02
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 8 Mar 2000 08:37:32 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) writes:
>>>
>>> > So the wages are lower in Europe, but the cost of living is lower, too.
>>
>>> Really. Try living in the UK for a while.
Was in England for two months last year.
I found that in England the price of almost everything was exactly the
same as it is in Canada. Unfortunatly that had the habit of sticking
that stupid pound symbol, instead of the dollar symbol in front of all
those numbers.
>While I was living in England, which was admittadly, over 15
>years ago, food was more expensive than the US, so was petrol,
...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Desmond Coughlan)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 8 Mar 2000 08:56:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7 Mar 2000 15:15:25 GMT, Michael C. Vergallen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Also take in account that we've got the state taking care of our
> >health, pension etc., that is we don't need to pay private health
> >insurances and such from our salary after taxes unless we want to.
> Now I don't really like the state making those desisions for me ... but here
> in europe we don't have a choice to opt out of this so I'm forced to pay for
> a mediocre healt system and a pension that will be only 800 Euro / month if
> anything is payed at all. I rather make my own provisions on pensions and
> healt, also who cares about the working hours ... I would like to be able to
> make this out for my self instead of some fucked up government desiding how
> long I can work in a week.
I *think* that one can opt out from the public health scheme here in
France. As for hours, the French government does not impose the
35-hour week on any worker; all it does is forbid companies from
imposing it on their employees.
--
Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris France
***************************************************************************
The views expressed in these articles are my own, and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Forum des Images.
***************************************************************************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] + 33 (0)1 44.76.62.29 http://www.forumdesimages.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 8 Mar 2000 04:01:31 -0500
In article <89j21t$166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>LOL
>
>Great comedy writing.
>
>
>--doc
>
>
>"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:89but1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I provide the following in response to the notion that "Windows is easy
>> to install".
>
><snip>
>
Well, I'm glad I amused you. Do you have a point to make?
BTW I was baffled by the complete lack of response to my post other than
the above, so I looked on Deja News and it is not there! Very strange.
Does anyone else have a problem seeing it?
--Norm
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 08:57:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a very long read but it is very well documented and detailed.
>
> This report from Aberdeen Group is something
> I waited for for some time. I
> knew they were creating it but had no
> idea it had come out already. They are
> reporting now factually what I've been
> saying for some time and what I
> continue to say.
It's interesting. I have been giving almost exactly the
same information as a Linux Advocate. Let's look more carefully
at the report:
NT is "reliable" under the following conditions.
<quote>
Those circumstances are as follows:
Provided that NT/Windows 2000 applications
are properly designed so that they do not
conflict with the operating system;
</quote>
In my numerous posts, I suggested that when used with carefully
managed configurations, NT can be more reliable. Put more simply,
limiting each server to one primary service or function. This may
mean that you would need as many as 7 servers to replace a single
Linux server that provides Web Server, Mail Server, News Server,
DNS server, router, firewall, and SQL Database.
I also indicated that third party software increases the risks. This
is also implied by the above statements. The statement is very
carefully phrased to appease Microsoft, but holds no significant
surprises.
<quote>
Provided that the NT/Windows 2000 environment is
operated in a data-center-like manner
with policies and procedures for change management,
software updates, software
distribution, backup/restore, and the like; and
</quote>
Again, this reaffirms my statements that when you conduct
"standard maintenance" (which includes reboots at LEAST once
per week, preferably once/night) and you deduct this as "scheduled
down time" (therefore not included in availability ratings), you
can achieve availability of around 99.97% (more on this below).
<quote>
Provided that, in heterogeneous environments, third-party
or custom code is used to enhance system manageability
and security, as well as to improve cross-operating
environment directory services.
<quote>
Put very simply, if you intend to server anything other than trivial
web pages and intend to integrate to other systems - NT is NOT a
self-contained solution. In fact, NT does not support critical
standards required for reliable integration with Minicomputers,
Mainframes, and SuperComputers used for truly "Mission Critical"
environments.
> NT is reliable
> and definately enterprise ready. W2K even
> much more so.
<quote>
Table 1
Early Adopter Reliability Statistics on Windows 2000
Customer # Run Time (years) Down Time Availability
Percentage
1 0.45 0.10 99.94
2 4.18 0.84 99.95
3 0.09 0.01 99.96
4 0.30 0.00 100.00
5 0.65 0.09 99.96
6 0.84 0.07 99.98
7 0.72 0.01 100.00
8 0.81 0.41 99.86
9 0.39 0.13 99.91
Totals: 8.42 1.65 99.95
Source: Microsoft Corporation, February 2000
</quote>
Let's see what 99.95% availability really means. There are
7 days/week 24 hours/day and 60 minutes/hour or 10080 minutes.
That means that you can expect an average of 5 minutes of
unscheduled down-time per week. Furthermore, the highest
likelihood of a failure is during peak-hour load, during
the most critical period. Often, secondary numbers giving
times of 90% uptimes on a 12x6 basis (mon-sat 7am-7pm) tend
to indicate that most failures happen during "prime-time".
For each $1 million a company makes, nearly 80% occurrs during
prime-time, and nearly 60% happen during peak-time - 3 hours/day
3 days/week (mon, thurs, friday) 50 weeks/year - roughly 27000
minutes - at $22/minute per million earned. but we have 50*5 minutes
per year of down-time 250 minutes. This yields a down-time cost
of $5500/year per server per million earned. A one billion company
with 2000 NT servers loses 110 million/year. This assumes that each
server has an impact of $1 million/year.
By the way, the industry average uptime for UNIX systems is 99.9998%
or about 10 minutes per YEAR. Furthermore, UNIX "standard
maintainance" would require a semiannual reboot, and SIGHUP signals
to key severs on a weekly basis which causes log rotations with
less than 3 seconds of delay. This is 2 parts per MILLION!
Linux isn't quite as reliable as Solaris, AIX, or HP_UX, and only
touts 99.9993% or a reboot once/month INCLUDING time spent to reboot to
switch to a kernel upgrade. Linux keeps these statistics
as part of it's standard function and averages uptimes of about 6
months. There are sites that have reported uptimes of over 4 years.
Once I put the UPS on my Linux box, I have clocked over 4 months
of uptime. I rebooted to upgrade.
> NT Advocates will find themselves nodding
> their heads and probably smiling a
> lot at things they will think
> "I have been saying that!" and will also find
I guess it depends on what you consider acceptable levels of failure.
If your bank only lost .10% of your income (about $10/thousand earned),
you wouldn't care. If you have 100 servers, you would have to reboot
at least one of them an average of every 30 minutes. You'd have to
find the right one, and reboot it.
Keep in mind these are server applications, and the MTTR is the time
from discovery of the failure to problem resolution (usually a system
reboot).
> some very nice supporting documentation
> to our claims. A *FAIR*
> anti-MS/anti-NT type IF they are capable
> of setting aside prejudgment and
> bias will probably find suprises in the report.
Actually, you will find the same figures given on my web site,
and in a search of my postings. There is absolutely no news
here other than that the Aberdeen group considers 5 minutes/week/server
to be "adaquate for enterprise level systems".
> I hope, but doubt, that many
> linvocates will at last find that
> we've been making claims consistant with
> reality as regards enterprise readiness
> and uptime reliability for NT.
Hey, would you like to fly in a plane that fails 5 minutes/week?
What if the Stock Market crashed 5 minutes/week?
Would you like to have your life support connected to NT?
Would you like to pick up your phone an NOT get a dial tone,
or have at least one call/week disconnected because of a failure?
Keep in mind that this 5 minutes can be additive. If you need
a DNS/WINS server, an IIS server, a DB/2 server, and a dedicated
third-party server to have the functional system, you could find
than your system is down 20 minutes/week - prime time of course.
Add a few NT based routers, firewalls, and gateways, and you have
a very unstable system.
But, thank goodness, NT isn't used for these "invisable" functions.
The routers are UNIX based. The firewalls are UNIX based. Even the
ATM and telephone switching equipment is UNIX based. The cash-flow
system is OS/390 based.
> If you intend to continue as an advocate
> you will do all of us a favor by
> reading this link.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/reviews/dotcoms.asp
I do reccomend this link. Then compare it to uptime information
provided by Sun, IBM, and HP. You can also get some uptime values
from LinuxCare, Red Hat, and SCO for UNIX and Linux.
Keep in mind that for mission critical systems, Linux is considered
inadaquate because it's 3 minutes/month downtime is considered
unacceptable.
To be fair, Windows 2000 has simplified development which makes MTS
based applications less crash-prone. Furthermore, MSMQ makes
clustering easier. Of course, Linux sports similar programming
models in an UNIX-Compatible standard API environment, supports
several industry standard clustering standards, and supports a
large array of production hardened components. My understanding
is that you will be down an average of 1 minute/week/server.
Unfortunately, many third party developers are finding that it's
very difficult to recover the costs of developing NT software. The
developers need more support, the users expect more "glitz", and
their own developers have to use an entirely different set of APIs.
It's much easier to develop Linux and UNIX systems that support common
APIs, common utilities, and common utilities. Furthermore, the GUI
interfaces are "veneers" which means that more "GLITZ" can be added
or subtracted as needed.
> if you are afraid of the truth there is always slashdot. org
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 30 million satisfied users
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Dr Yassam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT - So Where's The Emotion?
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:47:08 GMT
> I didn't know exactly where to tac this on, but it's appropriate to
> the discussion.
>
> http://dreamcast.ign.com/news/16173.html
>
> It has been announced today that Planetweb will be releasing v2.0 of
> their browser for the Dreamcast probably at or around E3 this year.
> The browser will now be capable of handling such things as: MP3s, more
> Javascript, Flash 3.0, PNG graphics files, and more.
Thanks for the info. This will be good news for many Dreamcast owners.
Dr Yassam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: my .02 on linux
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:17:01 +0000
David Little wrote:
<snip>
> probably just more conftorable with the windows UI, but isn't *almost*
> everyone? I believe that for linux to suceed on the desktop, it has to
> have a windows-like or easier UI, or else very few will bother to
> switch.
>
Have you tried Fvwm-95 (also known as Fvwm2) ?
You can configure to be quite win95 ish.
-Ed
>
> Just my little .02
>
> Dave
--
Did you know that the highest point in the world is only eight foot?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.troll,alt.linux,alt.intel
Subject: Re: Drestin Black = Village Idiot
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:23:51 +0000
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > CW wrote:
> >
> > > Drestin Black = Village Idiot
> > >
> > > Can't see the future, can you ???
> > >
> > > LAY off the bottle and get off of your sister...
> >
> > And dress in another color now and then.
> >
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Austin, Texas
> >
> >
>
> <grin> I just liked the handle - I borrowed it from someone else.
At leasy you don't claim it's innovative.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the highest point in the world is only eight foot?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 03:30:46 -0700
From: Warren Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:53:27 GMT, Christopher Wong wrote:
>
> >And if I set up my system correctly, I need never be "outside the
> >special webfonts".
>
> Well that's fine if you never do anything besides browse the web.
> Personally, I don't want to use those same fonts in every document
> I create. Especially since I usually care more how my documents look
> on paper than on screen.
In this case, the quality of the rasterizer doesn't usually make much of
a difference. Fonts that look horrible on screen can look wonderful on
paper. More below.
> >I said I would get excellent fonts most of the time. It's not like I
> >write my letters with a gazillion fonts at once.
>
> It's not like the web fonts are always the best for writing letters,
> either.
I have a collection of the 35 Adobe Postscript fonts -- real Adobe
foundry fonts, not cheap knockoffs. I've got them installed on my home
Linux box, and they _suck_ on screen. I'm sure they'd be beautiful in
printouts. They just aren't hinted properly for screen resolutions.
The same goes for all the Bitstream Type 1 fonts I got with the various
versions of Corel Draw. These aren't junk fonts: they're just intended
for printing, not for day-to-day screen display.
Face it: screen hinting is hard -- no one puts much time into it unless
they specifically intend for the font to be used on a computer screen.
Microsoft (or rather, Monotype) has done that with their fonts, but I've
yet to see any others. (I'm sure they're out there -- the point is,
they're rare.)
--
= Warren -- See the *ix pages at http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/ix/
=
= ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:28:21 +0000
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "[Linux] is not a robust enough platform."
>
> "there's no danger of Linux undermining Microsoft's dominance in the desktop
> operating system market"
>
> yawn...
Robust - in what way?
If NT/Win2K are said to compare to linux in stability (robustness?) then
they are not suitable for Office. Then again, nothing it ;-)
-Ed
>
> and from the same source, one of your own finally admits the truth:
>
> http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/02/no.linux.desktop.idg/index.html
>
> "mr_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Eventually, Microsoft is going to get tired of re-inventing the
> > UNIX wheel as if it were new and just come aboard the UNIX camp.
> >
> > This will be a sad day for us all.
> >
> > http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/06/ms.linux.idg/index.html
> >
> >
> > --
> > The lovely, the talented, and the quite dapper,
> >
> > Mr Rupert
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Did you know that the highest point in the world is only eight foot?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 03:37:26 -0700
From: Warren Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:48:05 GMT, Christopher Wong wrote:
> >On 7 Mar 2000 05:55:38 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If I throw out a bundle of extra cash to get a Postscript-capable
> >printer,
>
> Myth: Postscript printers are expensive
> Fact: Postscript Lasers start at $400-, postscript inkjets start at $100-
Do you have specific examples? This $100 Postscript-enabled inkjet
printer I just gotta see. We are talking "new" prices here, aren't we?
In my experience, any given printer, if it comes in Postscript and
non-Postscript versions, will cost $100 to $300 more for the Postscript
version. This applies to everything from NECs with non-Adobe knockoff
engines in them to HPs with genuine Adobe Postscript engines in them.
I just bought a used HP 5MP (postscript version of the personal-laser
class 5P printer) for a bit over $500, and thought I got a pretty good
deal.
--
= Warren -- See the *ix pages at http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/ix/
=
= ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 03:40:20 -0700
From: Warren Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On 7 Mar 2000 18:47:15 GMT, David T. Blake wrote:
>
> >xfstt is available for all non-RedHat X systems as a drop in
> >replacement for the X font server. There is lots on it on
> >the web, including several web sites.
>
> Are you sure you don't mean xfsft ? xfstt is only truetype AFAIK.
xfstt and xfsft are both TrueType X font servers. xfsft uses FreeType,
xfstt uses something else....
--
= Warren -- See the *ix pages at http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/ix/
=
= ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
