Linux-Advocacy Digest #736, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (josco)
Re: Salary? ("James T. Dennis")
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:09:45 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:26:39 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jim Ross wrote:
[deletia]
>> You can reboot with no problem. Mark is wrong or else he is assuming
>that by
>> "reboot" you meant hit the power button. But clicking on the reboot
>button
>> from the login box should cause no problems.
>>
>> Gary
>
>
>I was worried as I do reboot alot since I switch between Linux and Windows
>frequently.
>Thanks for that info Gary.
You should check out www.vmware.com and see if you could find
that useful. You can go either way with it. Performance will
be an issue of course.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:53:20 -0800
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, David D. Huff Jr. wrote:
> This individual is apparently historically deficient.
As opposed to being intellectually deficient.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3900/3932.htm
------------------------------
From: "James T. Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 00:44:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8a3bka$sje$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| The typical rate for UNIX administrators with a college degree
>| and 1 year of experience is around $30K-$40K, depending on where
>| you live.
> That may be the most important part, like real estate: "location,
> location, location"
>| If you can establish yourself as a "star performer", your company
>| will do whatever it takes to keep you around. If you make your boss
>| look good, make your organization look good, and make your company
>| look good, they will want to make you look good.
>|
>| A "star performer" can easily get offers of six figure incomes from
>| multiple organizations. Your employer knows this. Hopefully, they
>| will see that you are worth more to them as one of their employees
>| than as someone working for a competitor, a supplier, or a customer.
> I don't think you will get that money anywhere but in a large city, at
> least as an employee vs. contractor. And smaller companies can be more
> flexible, providing telecommute days, extra vacation, travel or other
> benefits instead of money. Don't knock quality of life, there's a reason
> why people in NYC and LA have weekend places :-(
In the silicon valley typical junior sysadmin rates are
currently about 60-70K per year. Advanced sa's are
pulling down 80-90K base.
However, those are just base salaries. I know one SA
that just retired from Netscape with a couple of million
in diversified investments. He got lucky, but he was also
smart --- he stuck with it, didn't sell off all his shares
as soon as he could, worked hard for about five years there,
and he spent quite a bit of energy learning about and
engaging in investing, tax management and financial planning.
Who knows. I might make that yet.
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:49:07 +0100
yes, but linux advocates (i don't have those crashes) only have windows
crashes periodically, but windows is always faster. :)
Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> NT. It's now Linux. The performance difference I feel in the end user
> >> role is that Linux is faster ( printing and net surfing especially - I
> >> get average 2.5 times faster )
> >
> >
> >however, sometimes not fast enough to move a mouse. no problems in
windows
> >there.
> >
>
> Windows sometimes isn't even fast enough to display the crtl-alt-del
window,
> and thus gives me a bluescreen. And I guess M$ should have paid more
attention
> to creating a stable and usable OS than implementing a perfectly scheduled
> mouse driver.
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:05:25 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> He's not saying how hard it is to install Windows; he's saying it is hard
to
> install Windows.
Despite reading your sentence a bunch of times and making lots of guesses, I
was never sure what you meant, exactly.
I'm thinking maybe "how hard it is to install Windows" is a regionalism?
> >Well, I live in New York City and it would work for me to take a trip to
> >Boston by first flying to South Africa, taking a slow boat to China, etc.
> >but that's not what I really need to do to get to Boston, is it?
> It is if you have to go by way of South Africa because there's only one
> airplane and you don't know how to fly it...
The kicker is that I don't need an airplane to get there, though. I agree
if you don't know that that you might have to take the airplane. That
doesn't make it "the way" to get to Boston, though.
> >By the way, most OEMs provide restore disks. If something gets screwed
up
> >with Windows, the restore disks are designed to put your system back to
its
> >"original" state with one click or one number selection and "enter" (the
> >latter if you can't boot Windows and your BIOS can't do a CD boot).
> By the way, most OEMs restore disks are entirely irrelevant; this is the
> procedure to install Windows; the OEM restore disks are a way to reinstall
a
> system state; they cannot be used to reinstall Windows, even on those
> machines.
Not true at least in every case I've had personal experience with. I've had
machines, and I've experienced friends machines where something or another
became really screwed up and we restored with the rescue disk(s). At one
point, they'll ask you to stick in the Windows disk while you sit back and
massage your feet or something, but that involved opening the CD tray and
putting the disk in.
I suppose you could deny my experience, though . . . I can't really stop you
from doing that.
> MS loves this idea, and you parrot how "easy" it is,
Well, I've done it a bunch of times. Would you prefer that I lie about my
experience just because you don't like Microsoft?
> when the
> entire discussion is how disfunctional the situation is that prevents
Windows
> from being installed by end-users,
Seriously, I've installed Windows many many times and never had a problem
more complex than having to download a driver from the net.
> whether by intent or by design, and then
> allows you idiots to proclaim that Linux is not preferable to Windows
>because
> its tough to install.
I'm not arguing in this thread about Windows or Linux being preferable
because of installation.
And in fact, I just recently posted a thread about how I thought the Red Hat
GUI installer kicked the Windows' installers ass.
I'm just pointing out that Norm's procedure was a bit ridiculous and didn't
much resemble installing Windows. Even assuming his hardware peculiarities.
> Its double-talk and horse hockey, by the way.
Again, what do you want me to do, lie about my experience? I refuse to do
that for any political point, whether pro, anti or neutral-Microsoft or
Linux.
The problem is that I suspect that some other people _are_ lying, or at
least grossly exaggerating for the sake of making their political points.
On the other hand, I've also said in a number of posts that maybe there's
some other reason that my experiences are so different than whoever's
experiences that I'm responding to.
> >>so that I can begin to re-install and customize all my
> >> apps (which takes another hour or two and is not covered here). It
also
> >> does not include configuring the network properties and installing the
> >> firewall that I use.
> >It shouldn't. Those aren't part of installing an OS itself. They are
> >things the OS can do, but they aren't part of installing the OS.
> Neither's installing Explorer or Outlook, but you gotta do those, too...
If the OS installs Explorer or Outlook, you don't have to do that--it's done
for you. Whether they _should_ be considered a part of the OS is something
you could argue about, but that doesn't interest me very much.
>And
> since they both require networking correctly configured to be usable,
I'm wondering if this is going to turn into an argument of the sort I had
with Marvin.
Explorer, like it or not, _is_ integrated to a large extent with the rest of
the OS, especially in Win2K. Outlook is certainly not usable for email
without network access of some sort, but then again, there's also Outlook's
calendar and contacts and task list, all of which I've even used myself on
machines not connected to the Internet or any other sort of network.
And, configuring those apps for network support would still be configuring
them and not technically installing the OS. I'd also say the same thing to
someone complaining about installing Linux while mentioning trying to
configure their system for network access.
and
> Microsoft is the one who insists that Explorer is part of the OS, I'd say
> that's more doubletalk and horse hockey from the MS-lovers camp.
I don't have a real opinion on it. It doesn't really matter to me if they
consider it part of the OS or not, frankly. On the other hand, it also
doesn't bother me at all that it is installed with all the recent Windows
OSs.
> > > As I mentioned earlier, I am not asking for advice (not that any has
> >> been given other than emotional rants about how I am incompetent and
> >> don't know what I'm talking about).
> >I seriously thought it was written as a joke. It sounds like something I
> >would write if I was trying to be humorous through mockery and
>exaggeration.
> I think that was the point, and you missed it.
Well, he claimed to have no idea why I was LOL'ing, and keeps arguing that
it is the actual procedure he has to go through. I've come to believe that
he's serious.
> >> This procedure works for me, it has
> >> been debugged, and I'm used to it and will continue to use it and I'm
> >> not interested in endless discussions on how I could refine it to save
a
> >> step or two (if it ain't broke don't fix it...)
> >Again, it could work for me to get to Boston via Johannesburg and Hong
Kong
> >. . .
> In other words "don't bother; we will ignore any such plea and deconstruct
>the
> details endlessly, providing endless reminders of ways to save a step or
two
> in order to again pretend that our ridicule is either helpful or
humorous".
In other words, presenting that account with the implication that it is the
standard method of installing Windows isn't factual.
I would say the same thing if you posted a similar account of Linux in order
to make a political point.
> [...]
> >> SOLO 2X/51/91
> >Their Rescue Disks?
> Their "magic disks", containing undocumented .vdx updates to account for
> Microsoft's characteristically self-serving OS updates which caused great
> confusion at everyone else's expense by botching the release of BusCard
driver
> code.
> >> BOOT DISKETTE
> >If the SOLO 2X/51/91 is Gateway's Rescue Disk floppies, you don't need a
> >Windows boot floppy. Gateway's Rescue Disks would boot the Windows
> >installer.
> How helpful. I mean useless.
Do you think that my statement is false?
> >> Version 1.4
> >> Disk 1 or 1
> >What is Version 1.4 and Disk 1 or 1?
> >Or is this all a long way of saying, "The Gateway Rescue Disk(s)?"
> No, this is a different "magic disk" with undocumented .vxd updates. Once
> again, the point of this discussion, I believe, is to illustrate that the
> common assumption that Windows is "click-click-installed" and Linux is
>"tough
> to install" is an entirely bogus fabrication. This misconception is based
on
> two things:
Well, I've offered to do this with a bunch of people here so far for various
different disagreements, yet no one wants to take me up on it. How about we
work out some means through which we can do a little experiment, in this
case, installing Windows on a bunch of different machines?
I'm not being rhetorical or joking. For the sake of offering factual
information, let's get a bunch of PCs together, install Windows, and record
exactly what we have to do to get it installed.
If you live far from New York City, I'll try to arrange some way we can do
this long distance.
I'm not trying to give anyone shit for its own sake, I seriously have had
experiences nothing like Norm is reporting or like you are defending. Maybe
all your experiences have been like Norm's. If nothing else, that
fascinates me because of the discrepancy, and I'd be curious to try to
discover why that discrepancy is the case.
> 1) Intentional confusion between the concepts of installing an OS and
being a
> PC integrator
> 2) Intentional cheating of the mass public by Microsoft, accomplished
through
> '1)' and a host of other illegal and/or anti-competitive activities.
>
> >> TELEPATH MODEM
> >> XJ5560 with Cellular and x2 Technology
> >> Installation Disk
> >
> >Technically, installing the modem isn't installing the OS.
>
> Neither is installing the video card drivers or Internet Explorer; what's
your
> point?
>
> >In any event,
> >that must be a modem that is newer than Win95?
>
> Which Win95?
>
> > If so, was it the modem that
> >came with the machine?
>
> Yes, why?
>
> >There's a couple big problems here:
> >(1) Why is Gateway selling you a machine with a modem that is newer than
the
> >OS?
>
> So now everybody is supposed to stop making new hardware until Microsoft
says
> its OK?
>
> >It should have had whatever OS came out after the modem, unless the
> >modem came out _right_ after the OS release and MS didn't know that it
was
> >about to come out and would need a different driver, and
>
> What have you been smoking?
>
> >(2) If this is the modem that came with the machine, why isn't the driver
> >install on the Gateway Rescue Disk? It's supposed to be.
>
> Strike that; nobody gets that stupid from smoking. You better rush to the
> hospital and have your stomach pumped.
>
> >> EtherDisk Version 5.3 (DOS 1.44 MB)
> >> EtherLink III PC Card Adapter
> >
> >Networking stuff isn't technically part of the OS install either,
especially
> >a Win95 install.
>
> You know, for an MS dweeb, you don't seem to have a very good handle on
the
> Corporate Line.
>
> > If you're installing WinNT workstation or something, it
> >would be more arguable that networking is part of the OS install.
>
> So now whether or not something is part of an OS install depends on what
OS
> you're installing? Make up your mind, would you?
>
> >If you've
> >installed both, you'd know what I mean.
>
> I've installed both. I have no idea what you mean.
>
> >> 5. Press F2 during bootup to invoke setup.
> >
> >Or--"take out all cards, connect the floppy, stick the boot floppy and
> >Gateway Rescue CD/Win95 CD in and turn the machine on."
>
> All right, I'm not going to do this again.
>
> >I don't understand why you have to go to BIOS after you boot. You
shouldn't
> >have to. I've installed Windows on hundreds of machines (and yes, on a
few
> >of them it seems like a hundred times) and I've never had to go to BIOS
> >right away.
>
> What do you know; something outside your experience. How novel. I wonder
> just how many of those hundreds of installs were on late model laptops?
It
> seems you would be simply lucky if they were and you'd never had to
configure
> your BIOS to get the install to work.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:05:30 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting abraxas from alt.destroy.microsoft; 20 Mar 2000 15:45:34 GMT
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Quoting 5X3 from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Mar 2000 01:25:04 GMT
>>>You didnt have to go through all that partition crap. Theres a lot of
>>>partition software out there thats much easier than what you used. You
>>>also didnt have to remove the pcmcia stuff to install.
>
>> Yes, you do. On the Gateway 2600, those steps are absolutely 110% essential;
>> I know that without a doubt.
>
>Neat. I know without a doubt that you are absolutely incorrect, because ive
>actually DONE it.
As have I. Now how do you suppose we should resolve this paradox?
>>> In fact, my procedure (which goes a bit further,
>> but dates from a couple years ago, and may have been dealing with different
>> hardware or software revisions) went farther; I had to rip out the whole damn
>> PCI Bus in order to get "Windows" to install with all the drivers working.
>
>Do you always overcomplicate problems like this?
That was MS and Gateway's little bit of over-complication. I had nothing to
do with it other than to be the poor sucker who had to execute this step in
order to make it work. At least as far as I know; there may have been other
ways to make it work, except:
1) The hardware manufacturer didn't know of any (and I don't mean "didn't have
it in their knowledge base")
2) The OS supplier didn't know of any (or give two twigs about how screwed up
my computer was; they would take credit, but not responsibility, for the value
of my PC)
3) I didn't know of any (after several days of experimenting, and I am not
even remotely un knowledgable of such things)
There was only one way to get Windows successfully installed with sound and
video on the Gateway 2600 I had (and all 2600s at the time AFAIK), and that
was to delete the PCI Bus device and let Windows rebuild itself AFTER doing a
complete install and THEN applying the correct vxd and inf files.
Did you mean "do you always over-complicate *your responses* so much? If you
wouldn't question my knowledge and integrity, I wouldn't have to so
laboriously point out that I did not disagree with your observation (that you
had "done that", which I think at that point meant installing Windows on a
Gateway 2600 laptop) and NOT "done all that pcmcia stuff". I simply disagreed
with your interpretation (that this means that this is always entirely
unnecessary because it appears based only on your report and contrary to at
least two people's experience that it was unnecessary in your case).
>You've got quite an impressive signature for such an entirely unimpressive
>person.
Indeed.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
