I agree with you 100%... I sat on a tech support line for 2 hours at a cost of $ 35 for networking help in Windows 95. After all of that I ended up fixing the configuration problem in my networking myself. They tried to convince me it was my new 200 MMX processor and board that wasn't handling the communications w ith the modem properly... Of course I knew better.
I want to let all of the new Linux users and future users that may be lurking in this list... still sitting on the perverbial fence... deciding if Linux is righ t for them; GO FOR IT! I have never seen such a dedicated group of unselfish peo ple that ride these lists night and day helping all of us out of jams. I have wo rked in tech support for a major company and I will attest to the fact that they hire people who follow cheat sheets and have never touched a computer before. I was over qualified and over paid in their eyes because I am a free thinker and knowledgable. I always try new and challenging ways to correct problems. For tha t I was fired. I know that appreciation is not often shown because of the lack of personal cont act on the net. A lot of body language is missing over this medium. I just want to thank all of the gurus that have spent untold hours answering questions and n ursing us along and developing tight bonds between the users, hackers and develo pers. You guys are fantastic and we owe you a great deal. We may be scattered... we may be volunteers... but we have shown that you don't have to be locked in a lab to generate a fantastic and powerful operating system that is years in adva nced of the rest. Keith On 04-Dec-97 Wintermute wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Dear Debian Users, >> > >> [Quoting SCO] 1. Linux has no technical support or maintenance. >> >> I am instituting a 24/7 commercial email support desk for > >Huzzah! The more commercial support the better.. It's strange, but >corporations just don't think they're getting anything worth while >unless they're paying through the nose for it. > >> [Quoting SCO] 2.Linux has no defined strategy for the future. >> > >As far as I understood it, Linux has always had an unspoken dedication >to the users. To be the BEST operating system out there doesn't sound >like too bad of a game plan to me. But I suppose it needs to be fluffed >for management-sludge-brains to understand it more clearly.. or at least >to point to and say in effect "This statement of purpose weighs more >than any other I've ever seen.. this is definitely a good system." >(Don't think I'm kidding either.. this is almost to the letter the way >things are done.) > >> >> [Quoting SCO] 3.Most Important, can your company accept that its viability >> as a business depends heavily on a freeware product maintained by a small >> number of people on an essentially volunteer basis? >> > >First off, where do they get "small number"??! Now I KNOW this is a >joke. Anyone have the last known official estimate for the sum total of >Linux users? > >The only difference between commercial support and volunteer support is >that you can sue the pants off of someone who you've made a contract >with if they fail to hold up their end. > >The fact remains.. if something does go wrong, either way the system's >screwed, no amount of money you can pay can fix a problem. Only a >strong team of skilled and knowledged individuals who understand the >intrinsic details of the underlying system can solve the problem. What >I'm trying to convey is that .. > >Just because you've payed for support doesn't solve the problem any >faster or at all for that matter, and in the case of commercial support >you'll be dealing with out-sourced technical assistance and you may not >get to the original developers for weeks, even months (if at all). >(Climbing up THAT chain of command can be a nightmare... and I speak >from experience having had an INTERNAL vantage point on this.) > >I'll bet you any amount of money that the same is true for SCO. (In >daily practice we've dealt with several of these problems.. all the >same.. "Well we don't have support for that at this time.. perhaps >later..." or "We're working on it right now..." Only to wait 4 months >for vaporware...or vaporpatch as the case may be.) > >On a more productive note (shedding some of my rage at the audacity of >SCO to publish such nonsense, and the fact that I HATE their BASTARD, >BACKWARD OS with all my BEING.. eh hem). I would emphasize the fact >that when requesting support for Linux, 9 out of 10 times (with a >serious problem) you are getting help DIRECTLY from the developer >responsible for that piece of the operating system, and not some hired >warm-body who only knows what he's been taught in their (often >inadequate) training courses. > >This list can attest to that fact. I requested assistance with my 3c509 >card, nothing was working. I contacted Donald Becker personaly, and I >immediately got HELP. Within 24 hours I got a response with critical >information that helped me find and solve my problem. > >Could I have gotten that with WinBlows 95 or NT? No. (Not without >spending a fortune for Mission Critical assistance and then waiting 2 >weeks while they tripped over each other in their incompetancy.) And >you're not going to find it in any other commercial Unix either. PERIOD. > >The difference? We CARE about our OS. The success of our Linux >community rests on a devotion to something in which we believe and NOT >because we're trying to turn a buck. If there's a problem with the >system it's like a problem with our health, and immediate action is >taken to cure the illness. Corporations like SCO would rather wait for >the illness to become an epidemic before taking the first steps toward >action. > >> [Quoting SCO] 4.Of course, there is a challenging aspect to Linux. Just >> imagine all of the fun you get when you encounter a bug and debug the kernel >> yourself. > >This is an out and out insult. Their system is no different than any >other. Say you find a problem with their kernel? What then? Call 'em >up. Tell them your problem. Dick around for about a week or two until >you finally drill into their skulls that you AREN'T a moron and that >there is a REAL concern. Then wait a few MORE weeks while several >lackies waste your time on telephone debugging sessions, until FINALLY >it gets back to the man in charge of that particular piece o' kernel. >With the Linux way we cut out about 3-4 weeks, a bottle of aspirin, and >a mean case of cauliflower ear from being on the phone for hours on end. > >> >> Obviously, the commercial support organization I am forming will address >this. >> > >Commercial support will prove that Linux is more than just a flash in >the pan operation, and that we REALLY are serious about providing the >BEST possible operating system available. > >But let's not forget Linus's "World Domination 101" directive. >Applications, applications, applications! Perhaps some of this capitol >accrued through commercial tech support could fund development projects >to stock Linux with high quality business-ware that could loosen the >grip of the Evil Empire on office productivity markets. We all KNOW >that if we can get in THAT door, we've got 'em. > >> I think it's nice when a company takes their time to isolate all of your >> problems and point them out so neatly so that you can work on them. >> I reproduce the entirety of SCO's nice letter below. >> > >It sounds more like a company flailing and moaning in its final throws >of death, but I agree with everything you've said. > >They've tried to step into OUR court now, and by doing so they've made a >BIG mistake. The only thing that we really lack in order to impress >corporations of the validity of Linux is true-blue commercial technical >support. They need to feel comfortable knowing that if something goes >wrong they have a contractual agreement which entitles them to immediate >"level 1 priority" support. (I speak from experience.. I'm fighting a >slow war with my company to prove to them that Linux is every bit as >viable (if not more so) than Solaris, AIX, BSDi, etc, etc, etc.) With a >commercial support option, I'd have a very large gun to fight with >indeed. > >-- Wintermute > > >-- >TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] . >Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- E-Mail: Keith Holler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #5386440 Date: 04-Dec-97 Time: 03:29:14 __ _ / / (_)__ __ ____ __ / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / . . . t h e c h o i c e o f a /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ G N U g e n e r a t i o n . . . -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
