Re: [SLUG] Sharp Zaurus?
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 10:02, Peter Chubb wrote: Hi, Has anyone had any experience with the Sharp Zaurus, or other Linux-based PDAs? I'm particularly interested in how usable they are for usual PDA type stuff (like the Datebook etc., functionality on a PalmOs device), as well as for the usual Linux stuff (taking quick memos, synchronisation with a Linux desktop, etc.) Hi, I have a Sharp Zaurus SL-5500. They're the ones that were all over the Internet a while back. I got it to replace my old Palm V when it died and I've been really happy with it. To be truthful however, I've enjoyed it mostly because it has let me work how I'd like to work rather than with the interface it provides. I do almost everything in vi, on a Konsole, which is very similar to how I record things on my main machine. When I want to sync stuff, I simply use scp over the USB connection ;-). I sometimes also use the address book which is provided by openzaurus. I find the keyboard pretty usable, although I have heard a number of people complain about it being too small for them. I guess it depends on personal preference. You can still use the stylus for typing on a virtual keyboard thing, or use the character recognition. Personally, I find that being able to use all the standard unix tools is great. Having find, xargs, grep, more and cat (as well as ssh), definitely makes things easier for me. You might want to rotate the screen if you want top to be useful though ;-) Cheers, Pasc -- Pascal Hakim Do Not Bend -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Cisco airo driver mpi350
Has anyone succeeded in installing this driver and getting it going on a 2.6.3 kernel. Rumour is that the mini PCI driver code merged at rc1 and should now work in 2.6.3-rc1+. I've been having issues on a thinkpad X31. Thinking I need to go backwards in firmware Revs.. Where is the best place for these sort of questions? slug or some cisco-x31-mpi350 list (already tried the linux tinkpad list to no avail). TIA Stu -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 04:38 pm, Howard Lowndes wrote: *snipped* Unless employers have a court order, they will need to give employees notice that surveillance will be conducted, he said. That could mean a warning box pops up when the computer is turned on. We already have a pre-login message on our systems that basically says: You agree to adhere to the acceptable use policy. You understand that anything and everything you do is logged and monitored and by logging into this system agree to allow this to occur. If you don't like this, HR will be happy to receive your resignation. I wonder if that's enough? Besides our mail gateway and ms-exchange server are in Boston, MA, so I guess we aren't exactly in the NSW jurisdictionor are we? SOAP_BOX I hate all this legal crap - they're lusers for fsck's sake. They aren't smart enough to know what's best for themdammit! They want to send porn to their mates and chew vast amounts of bandwidth on non-work related crap on MY network and now the government says - sure, that's OK, that's why you give them Internet access!?! Gaddam!! /SOAP_BOX Rant over.back to my beer. James -- Fortune cookies says: And now for something completely different. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I belive it's in part because of this: Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2004 http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/browse.aspx?NodeID=173 It will also be illegal to archive emails, or to appraise them as suitable for delivery or not by inspecting them by human eye. (automated methods considered ok) Well this flies in the face of several aspects of legislation; eg, in local gummint it is a _legislated_ requirement that _all_ records be archived for a minimum of 7 years, in many cases, in perpetuity. Matt -- Howard. LANNet Computing Associates - Your Linux people http://www.lannetlinux.com -- Flatter government, not fatter government - Get rid of the Australian states. -- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 20:43, James Gray wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 04:38 pm, Howard Lowndes wrote: *snipped* Unless employers have a court order, they will need to give employees notice that surveillance will be conducted, he said. That could mean a warning box pops up when the computer is turned on. We already have a pre-login message on our systems that basically says: You agree to adhere to the acceptable use policy. You understand that anything and everything you do is logged and monitored and by logging into this system agree to allow this to occur. If you don't like this, HR will be happy to receive your resignation. add to this ...and archived... Mind you, the resignation bit might just land you in trouble, I wonder if that's enough? Besides our mail gateway and ms-exchange server are in Boston, MA, so I guess we aren't exactly in the NSW jurisdictionor are we? probably, if the NSW courts so determine it. Just look at the Gutnik case in Victoria a couple of years ago. SOAP_BOX I hate all this legal crap - they're lusers for fsck's sake. They aren't smart enough to know what's best for themdammit! They want to send porn to their mates and chew vast amounts of bandwidth on non-work related crap on MY network and now the government says - sure, that's OK, that's why you give them Internet access!?! Gaddam!! It's also the reason why you install proxies, relay blocking and traffic shaping. Mind you, it would be more economic to do that over Linux or *BSD than it ever would over M$. There is nothing that says that you have to allow your employees to have email access other than that which is work related. They might scream, but screw them... /SOAP_BOX Rant over.back to my beer. James -- Fortune cookies says: And now for something completely different. -- Howard. LANNet Computing Associates - Your Linux people http://www.lannetlinux.com -- Flatter government, not fatter government - Get rid of the Australian states. -- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Problems with .tv?
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:31:44AM +1100, Grant Parnell wrote: Looks like jkljhlkajhslkjh.tv or anything.tv resolves to the same IP... Hmm... looks like they're trying what they did with .com a few months back only it's really backfired. It'd be nice if this were enough to convince Verislime that their DNS hijacking is a bad idea, but I predict that the money they can make out of it will just be Too Damn Tasty, and they'll keep doing it until ICANN gives up or gets paid off. - Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Cross platform interpreter invocation
At Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:47:12 +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote:
I'm accustomed to starting my various Python and Perl files with:
#!/usr/bin/env python
or
#!/usr/bin/env perl
However, you can't pass arguments to whatever you're invoking, thanks to
the limits of the #! interpretion (#!/usr/bin/env perl -w at the top
of a file causes a search for a binary named perl -w). What workaround
do people use for this problem in general? (I know -w is equivalent to
use warnings; so I know the Perl workaround)
#!perl -w
works on Linux, I'm not sure how it goes on other Unices..
For the perl case, you can use some wacky perl features (see
perlrun(1)). These all assume /bin/sh exists and use that to find
perl in $PATH:
#!/bin/sh
exec perl -x
#!perl -w
A variant on the standard MakeMaker-produced perl script:
#!/bin/sh
eval 'exec perl -w -S $0 ${1+$@}'
if 0; # not running under some shell
or even:
#!/bin/sh -- # -*- perl -*- -w
eval 'exec perl -S $0 ${1+$@}'
if 0; # not running under some shell
--
- Gus
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] OpenOffice.org Mailing list
On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 09:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have recently had to unsubscribe from the OOo mailing list. The reason: I received so many copys of an email that was autogenerated by exim that it filled my mailbox and caused it to refuse further posts. Is this a fault within exim or some sort of virus/worm? Sorry, That was ezmin not exim. The latest worms appear to fudge the mailing list header as well and there is actual virus emails that come though despite attachment stripping. The only comment I can make is that over the weekend the email server for OOo went down for a long time. By the way Openoffice.org 1.1.1 is officially release now. -- Thanks KenF OpenOffice.org developer -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [Oz-ISP] Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 21:17, Howard Lowndes wrote: On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I belive it's in part because of this: Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2004 http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/browse.aspx?NodeID=173 It will also be illegal to archive emails, or to appraise them as suitable for delivery or not by inspecting them by human eye. (automated methods considered ok) I don't quite see where you are getting this interpretation from. The bulk of the amendments refer to Subsection 6 of the Act, which deals with lawful interception. It is interesting to note that the amendments also refer to a Subsection 5D of the Act, but looking at the Act itself on Austlii I cannot see any Subsection 5D. -- Howard. LANNet Computing Associates - Your Linux people http://www.lannetlinux.com -- Flatter government, not fatter government - Get rid of the Australian states. -- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Norton AntiVirus detected a virus in a message you sent. The infected attachment was deleted.
Recipient of the infected attachment: HOMER, First Storage Group\Mailbox Store (HOMER), Chas Honton/Inbox Subject of the message: Re: details One or more attachments were deleted Attachment details.zip was Deleted for the following reasons: Virus [EMAIL PROTECTED] was found. Virus [EMAIL PROTECTED] was found in document.txt .exe. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] info on barebone laptos
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 10:51, Benno wrote: Questions about ELX products should probably be directed to them: http://www.everythinglinux.com.au/contact.php3 Well, I actually thought it was appropriate as I always use laptops and the winmodems are always the most troublesome. Therefore, I thought others may be interested as to what modems ELX believe are good. No matter... -- Simon Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Command Line Package Installation
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 00:44, Rajnish Tiwari wrote: Hi All, I need to install the package corresponding to development tools onto a RH EL server - but it doesn't have X-Windows. I guess the good old command line interface (CLI) is the option. Assuming I've found the rpm on the RH cds, what is the command to install it from CLI ? I'd wish to install it in whatever default location. (I am to give this instruction to a complete linux newbie sitting in another part of the world !!) So, there's a few tools you should probably know about. First of all, the basic install this package file program is called rpm. It installs stuff, deletes stuff and lets you query the database of packages you have installed. Assuming you have only one RPM you need to install, and you have all of its dependencies installed, this is the best command to use: rpm -Uvh file name The U is for upgrade, but it will install if a previous version isn't there. Using it will prevent you from installing parallel versions of software. 'i' is the option for straight installation. 'v' is for verbose and 'h' prints out hash marks as a progress indicator. If you want it to automatically install dependencies, then there is a tool called 'up2date' that will do what you want. It may require some configuration, I'm not sure. I'd guess that with EL the default setup will do. At any rate, you generally just do up2date package name and it will download the package from redhat, along with any dependencies and install them all for you. PS: It is times like these that I love .tar.gz files. Hmm ... give me Slackware anyday :-) These days RedHat ships with tar and gzip by default. These truly are exciting times we live in. HTH, James. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
There is nothing that says that you have to allow your employees to have email access other than that which is work related. They might scream, but screw them... Their screams are sweet music to the BOFH, and me :-) Now picture this, you are the IT admin and you've no personal e-mail at work, and no web access except for work related things? why should the IT department be different from everyone else? it these things are enforceable you have to remember the system aren't yours they are the companies, you are under the same law as everyone else... I find a lot ppl who work in IT departments have a lot more breakages of the AUP than most others :-) Dave. -- David Airlie, Software Engineer http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie pam_smb / Linux DECstation / Linux VAX / ILUG person -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
Dave Airlie wrote: There is nothing that says that you have to allow your employees to have email access other than that which is work related. They might scream, but screw them... Their screams are sweet music to the BOFH, and me :-) Now picture this, you are the IT admin and you've no personal e-mail at work, and no web access except for work related things? why should the IT department be different from everyone else? it these things are enforceable you have to remember the system aren't yours they are the companies, you are under the same law as everyone else... I find a lot ppl who work in IT departments have a lot more breakages of the AUP than most others :-) Dave. True. I am also subject to the AUP. However, I need SSH for my job, SSH can forward ports and thus my life will go on as normal. Most of what I do is shell-based anyway (mutt, slrn, nethack etc), so not using a GUI to surf isn't a particular problem for me. Besides, what I can't get on my systems at work, I can easily access from a shell account on one of the many systems I have sucking electrons at home. I agree with you about most AUP breaches occurring in IT departments though. We do because we can :P --James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
I think you are hitting the extremist view. By following your concept businesses would also remove B2B, B2C etc. How are you going to ensure your connectivity is functioning and secure? It's not going to happen. Why? Computer systems need to be kept up to date. Many businesses, do business using email. (If most companies are without email for a day start calculating the losses) Internet technologies is engrained into most businesses in such a short time. Compare business functions of today as opposed to 15-20 years ago. How many standalones or network computers where there. How many people conducted business over email,or a browser. I don't believe that every staff member needs internet access (email or browser) How are you going to define work related stuff for I.T? allow only web pages that have the word computer appear once or twice ;-) I don't think that an employer has the right to check emails. unless they stroll by your hobbit hole and see you looking at questionable material. They need to have proof before they go snooping. I guess it comes down to ethics when I was working for a top 10 fortune 500 organisation I was asked to snoop. I turned it down stating it's not ethical unless they have a valid reason and I would prefer to hear that command from HR or the CEO. IMHO it comes down to your moral fiber or lack their of to feel the need to snoop on staff emails. We all know of unethical organisations in the world but do we need to follow their lead? There is nothing that says that you have to allow your employees to have email access other than that which is work related. They might scream, but screw them... Their screams are sweet music to the BOFH, and me :-) Now picture this, you are the IT admin and you've no personal e-mail at work, and no web access except for work related things? why should the IT department be different from everyone else? it these things are enforceable you have to remember the system aren't yours they are the companies, you are under the same law as everyone else... I find a lot ppl who work in IT departments have a lot more breakages of the AUP than most others :-) Dave. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 13:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it comes down to ethics when I was working for a top 10 fortune 500 organisation I was asked to snoop. I turned it down stating it's not ethical unless they have a valid reason and I would prefer to hear that command from HR or the CEO. Absolutely agree, in writing, signed by someone who has the necessary authority to make such decisions. Otherwise tell them to find someone who is prepared to sign such an authority. -- Howard. LANNet Computing Associates - Your Linux people http://www.lannetlinux.com -- Flatter government, not fatter government - Get rid of the Australian states. -- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 31/03/2004 01:05:41 PM: --snip-- Dave. True. I am also subject to the AUP. However, I need SSH for my job, SSH can forward ports and thus my life will go on as normal. Most of what I do is shell-based anyway (mutt, slrn, nethack etc), so not using a GUI to surf isn't a particular problem for me. Besides, what I can't get on my systems at work, I can easily access from a shell account on one of the many systems I have sucking electrons at home. I agree with you about most AUP breaches occurring in IT departments though. We do because we can :P Does no one want to mention that Directors and CEO's are the worst offenders? Or would they snoop through your email ;) Hell, one of our directors had 3 gig of porn on his laptop. The only reason he doesn't anymore is he used to store it in c:\downloads and one day I took his laptop to a supplier of our customers, they happened to ask where I wanted a file... I said c:\downloads looks like a good place. Scott -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 16:38, Howard Lowndes wrote: hfl I guess there are a few of out there that will be needing some legal opinions on this one and some re-defined acceptable practice conditions. It looks like a minefield. /hfl http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1077250.htm The New South Wales Government is moving to outlaw bosses spying on workers' emails, unless they have a court order to do so. My first thought is so what? get back to work. It's the company's time and money, etc. But then in light of the Wesco stupidity comes the thought of a person stalking another using their position in the company... It might be a manager that's wasting/misusing the company's time and money, etc. So maybe this is something that does need some consideration. The step is said to be an Australian first. New South Wales Attorney-General Bob Debus says the union movement has been justifiably lobbying for laws to stop employers from spying on workers' emails. The Government proposes to tackle this problem and in this respect we will be the first Australian state to do so, Mr Debus said. Under the template proposed by the Government, a balance will be struck between the employee's right to privacy and the legitimate needs of employers to protect their intellectual and commercial properties, he said. He says the laws being drafted will not place a blanket ban on email surveillance but will make sure it is done ethically. Mr Debus says the new laws will make it a criminal offence to undertake any form of covert surveillance unless an employer can show a reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing by an employee. Unless employers have a court order, they will need to give employees notice that surveillance will be conducted, he said. That could mean a warning box pops up when the computer is turned on. -- Howard. LANNet Computing Associates - Your Linux people http://www.lannetlinux.com -- Flatter government, not fatter government - Get rid of the Australian states. -- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Using SAMBA/Linux to push Windows Group Policies
Folks, I'd love to chuck out a Windows 2000 server however it is used to push group policies down to windows clients. This includes such things as the default proxy, default settings, what the user can/cannot change and other admin things. I was wondering if there is anyway I can do this from a Samba box - or alternatively another way that I can do it without using a W2k server. I'm interested in comments from people who have tackled this. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 14:41:15 +1000, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote: On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 16:38, Howard Lowndes wrote: hfl I guess there are a few of out there that will be needing some legal opinions on this one and some re-defined acceptable practice conditions. It looks like a minefield. /hfl http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1077250.htm The New South Wales Government is moving to outlaw bosses spying on workers' emails, unless they have a court order to do so. My first thought is so what? get back to work. It's the company's time and money, etc. But then in light of the Wesco stupidity comes the thought of a person stalking another using their position in the company... It might be a manager that's wasting/misusing the company's time and money, etc. Wow, I'm amazed at this `workers as slave' mentality people have. I would not like to work in an office, or for a company, with such policies, it sounds like a depressing, draining, stressful environment to work in. (I'd wonder how productive/creative a bunch of stressed out and depressed emplooyees would be anyway.) Does anyone on this list really want to work in this kind of environment? Cheers, Benno -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Using SAMBA/Linux to push Windows Group Policies
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 02:46:28PM +1000, Matt Hyne wrote: Folks, I'd love to chuck out a Windows 2000 server however it is used to push group policies down to windows clients. This includes such things as the default proxy, default settings, what the user can/cannot change and other admin things. From memory, group policies are a stored in a .reg, which is just stored in a share somewhere. Of course, that might just be my shoddy memory at work, or else Microsoft's annoying habit of using the same (or nearly the same) term for multiple, totally separate things (a la domain and such). - Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004, Benno wrote: Wow, I'm amazed at this `workers as slave' mentality people have. The employer as essentially honest (in the just trying to make an honest busk sense) and employee as regretfully necessary dishonest money sink thing is also a bit odd. -Mary -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Benno wrote: Wow, I'm amazed at this `workers as slave' mentality people have. I would not like to work in an office, or for a company, with such policies, it sounds like a depressing, draining, stressful environment to work in. (I'd wonder how productive/creative a bunch of stressed out and depressed emplooyees would be anyway.) Does anyone on this list really want to work in this kind of environment? Cheers, try being a boss for a while... trying to get things done while people are spending hours on chat lines, dating sites, hotmail, cooking, etcetcetc... It's like everything else... in the end management has to create an environment where work WILL get done. At my place there is a clear policy (set by me) that says you play all you like as long as you don't stop yourself or others working. It works moderately well. Use of the net is a perk of the job, like the cappucino machine. Personally.. i can't be bothered checking up on email. I've got better (and more interesting) things to do. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 15:26:48 +1000, David wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Benno wrote: Wow, I'm amazed at this `workers as slave' mentality people have. I would not like to work in an office, or for a company, with such policies, it sounds like a depressing, draining, stressful environment to work in. (I'd wonder how productive/creative a bunch of stressed out and depressed emplooyees would be anyway.) Does anyone on this list really want to work in this kind of environment? Cheers, try being a boss for a while... You make huge assumptions that I never have been. trying to get things done while people are spending hours on chat lines, dating sites, hotmail, cooking, etcetcetc... It's like everything else... in the end management has to create an environment where work WILL get done. At my place there is a clear policy (set by me) that says you play all you like as long as you don't stop yourself or others working. It works moderately well. Use of the net is a perk of the job, like the cappucino machine. Yes sure, I don't think my email said anything against the right of the boss to set whatever working environment he wants, but I was a little amazed at the hard line attitude displayed by people in earlier emails. I wasn't saying that the office should be a playground or entertainment centre, but in my opinion, cutting people a bit of slack and creating a friendly work environment is more likely to create an environment where GOOD work gets done. (It is easy to look busy and achieve nothing). Benno -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Cross platform interpreter invocation
Mary == Mary Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mary On Tue, Mar 30, 2004, DE LUCA Ben wrote: Ive just tested it on gentoo and osx and both of them accept arguments Mary Latest env on Debian unstable doesn't. env on Solaris does. It's not env, it's the kernel. The kernel invokes an interpreter #!interp arg0 arg1 arg2 as interp arg0 arg1 arg2 Peter C -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 14:51, Benno wrote: On Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 14:41:15 +1000, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote: On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 16:38, Howard Lowndes wrote: hfl I guess there are a few of out there that will be needing some legal opinions on this one and some re-defined acceptable practice conditions. It looks like a minefield. /hfl http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1077250.htm The New South Wales Government is moving to outlaw bosses spying on workers' emails, unless they have a court order to do so. My first thought is so what? get back to work. It's the company's time and money, etc. But then in light of the Wesco stupidity comes the thought of a person stalking another using their position in the company... It might be a manager that's wasting/misusing the company's time and money, etc. Wow, I'm amazed at this `workers as slave' mentality people have. I would not like to work in an office, or for a company, with such policies, it sounds like a depressing, draining, stressful environment to work in. (I'd wonder how productive/creative a bunch of stressed out and depressed emplooyees would be anyway.) Does anyone on this list really want to work in this kind of environment? Reductio ad absurdum. Yes, anyone can use such an argument, and it's a great distraction. But that isn't the position I'm speaking from, although it's the position you may want to cast the discussion into. If I agree to paint the inside of your house, and root through your underwear while I'm there and drink your beer, I've broken my agreement, and your trust. I have no business doing that. On the other hand, you and I probably have no problem with me taking a personal call on my cell phone while I'm there, as long as I get my job done, and don't abuse any of your possesions while I'm there. It's less clear cut, but it might be resonable to assume you wouldn't mind me making a local call on your phone while I'm there if it's innocuous, say calling the office, or ordering lunch. I do that from work, and don't worry about it. But if I use your possessions to arrange a drug deal, or rack up a bill on a pay-per-minute call on your phone, I've taken what isn't mine from you. When I agree to represent somenone (i.e. be an employee), it's my agreement I'm giving. I don't abuse it knowingly. It isn't about them controlling me, it's about me taking responsibility for my agreements. It's their computer, their time, their business. I don't treat it as a straitjacket, although you might wish to pretend that's what I meant. It isn't. I treat it as a trust I've been given in return for my agreement, and I'm comfortable acting within that. I meant what I said, not what you said. Cheers, Bret Cheers, Benno -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 15:26, David wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Benno wrote: It's like everything else... in the end management has to create an environment where work WILL get done. At my place there is a clear policy (set by me) that says you play all you like as long as you don't stop yourself or others working. It works moderately well. Use of the net is a perk of the job, like the cappucino machine. In the dim and distant past I was in the motor trade and used to deal with a large trucking company who had their own maintenance workshop. If the boss found his mechanics sitting in the middle of a clean shop playing cards, without a truck in sight, then he paid them a bonus, as it meant that all his trucks were out earning money. -- Howard. LANNet Computing Associates - Your Linux people http://www.lannetlinux.com -- Flatter government, not fatter government - Get rid of the Australian states. -- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 16:33:34 +1000, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote: On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 14:51, Benno wrote: On Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 14:41:15 +1000, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote: On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 16:38, Howard Lowndes wrote: hfl I guess there are a few of out there that will be needing some legal opinions on this one and some re-defined acceptable practice conditions. It looks like a minefield. /hfl http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1077250.htm The New South Wales Government is moving to outlaw bosses spying on workers' emails, unless they have a court order to do so. My first thought is so what? get back to work. It's the company's time and money, etc. But then in light of the Wesco stupidity comes the thought of a person stalking another using their position in the company... It might be a manager that's wasting/misusing the company's time and money, etc. Wow, I'm amazed at this `workers as slave' mentality people have. I would not like to work in an office, or for a company, with such policies, it sounds like a depressing, draining, stressful environment to work in. (I'd wonder how productive/creative a bunch of stressed out and depressed emplooyees would be anyway.) Does anyone on this list really want to work in this kind of environment? Reductio ad absurdum. Yes, anyone can use such an argument, and it's a great distraction. But that isn't the position I'm speaking from, although it's the position you may want to cast the discussion into. It is the impression I got from your last email. But I'd accept it may not be what you intended. If I agree to paint the inside of your house, and root through your underwear while I'm there and drink your beer, I've broken my agreement, and your trust. I have no business doing that. On the other hand, you and I probably have no problem with me taking a personal call on my cell phone while I'm there, as long as I get my job done, and don't abuse any of your possesions while I'm there. It's less clear cut, but it might be resonable to assume you wouldn't mind me making a local call on your phone while I'm there if it's innocuous, say calling the office, or ordering lunch. I do that from work, and don't worry about it. But if I use your possessions to arrange a drug deal, or rack up a bill on a pay-per-minute call on your phone, I've taken what isn't mine from you. Sure, but in this case I place trust in you that you won't do these -- and part of that trust is I don't then go and monitor you when you make a phone call. When I agree to represent somenone (i.e. be an employee), it's my agreement I'm giving. I don't abuse it knowingly. It isn't about them controlling me, it's about me taking responsibility for my agreements. It's their computer, their time, their business. I don't treat it as a straitjacket, although you might wish to pretend that's what I meant. Its not about pretending -- that is the impression you gave me, as above, I'm prepared to accept that isn't what you meant, although I wasn't singly you out, there seemed to be a lot of people professing the same kind of attitude. It isn't. I treat it as a trust I've been given in return for my agreement, and I'm comfortable acting within that. So am I ;) Benno -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] NSW targets employers' email snooping
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 13:34, Howard Lowndes wrote: On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 13:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess it comes down to ethics when I was working for a top 10 fortune 500 organisation I was asked to snoop. I turned it down stating it's not ethical unless they have a valid reason and I would prefer to hear that command from HR or the CEO. Absolutely agree, in writing, signed by someone who has the necessary authority to make such decisions. Otherwise tell them to find someone who is prepared to sign such an authority. I agree with this. That said, I have a thought I'd like to explore... (Just hanging this off your post, as it let's me state right up front the agreement above.) If (hypothetical) you ride in my car, I pretty much consider your person inviolate, yours, not subject to my curiosity, etc... But I'm not sure that's what we're speaking of here (generally, I mean). Suppose (hypothetical) you ride in my car, and then leave a package, addressed to someone, and they then pick it up from my car later, and then they put a package in to return to (hypothetical) you, and when I ask what it is I'm transporting back and forth for the (hypothetical) two of you, (hypothetical) you tell me it's none of your business. Isn't it? It's my car. The law holds me responsible for what it's used for, because most resonable people hold me responsible for what it's used for, because I'm the one who has control of it, and thus I'm the one who decides what it's used for (or not). I'm not inquiring (in this hypothetical) about (hypothetical) you, I'm asking about what *I'm* carrying for (hypothetical) you. Is this actually about personal privacy, or is it about what the employer is enabling by providing capability without oversight? Are we mistaking what the actual issue is here by rushing to view it in terms of personal privacy? Is that actually what this is about? If I hold a slanderous opinion about someone in my head, that's privacy. If I say it out loud, is it private? Is privacy the issue if I let it out of my person into the world? Am I flying under false colors to consider this as if it were a privacy issue? Again, this was just a place to hang my thoughts, not particularly about anything you say/think/etc. Given the potential for abuse by people within the company monitoring other people's contacts, I agree that this is something that there should be some legal oversight of. But I'm not sure personal privacy is actually involved at all here. Cheers, Bret -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
