[issues] Re: [techtalk] Sick of surf and porn addicts
Hi, James, and everyone else, Actually, you're both guilty here. In some posts you didn't specify, and both of you have pontificated as if you are talking about some sort of universal law. I called "Penguina" on it, so I'd be remiss if I didn't do the same to you. >> But not while you're on my payroll, and not using my equipment and not >> using my telephone, and not using my internet connection. I, as a >> private employer, have every right to monitor what goes on with my stuff, >> including what my employees do with my stuff. And if you want to store >> porn on my disk drive, you can bloody well get your walking papers. > Certainly not true in countries where citizens have rights (instead of the > free-for-all corporate lets-screw-the-public-fest you seem to enjoy). I cannot speak for New Zealand, as I have never lived there or even visited, but I can say that I fully disagree with what you are saying, and I must say you managed to be just as disrespectful of opposing views as she was. I have had the privilege of living in two different countries (I'm a dual national) and of having travelled the world and conducted business in countries with greatly varying amounts of freedom. The US falls into the category of "free-for-all corporate lets-screw-the-public-fest" by your definition, and I honestly feel we have more freedoms here, and more guarantees of our freedoms, than any other place in the world I have been. I would rate our Bill of Rights specifically, and really our Constitution as a whole, as a model for guaranteeing the rights of individual citizens. Having said that, there are times when societal or corporate rights must be balanced against individual rights. The US Supreme Court has recognized this. The most famous example is that free speech is limited: you do not have the right to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, nor do you have the right to incite a riot in the US. I think these are good limitations on individual rights. What you are defending (the right to surf porn sites on company time) is theft, plain and simple. If I am a business owner (as I once was) and an employee does this, my rights are being trampled on and my funds being stolen. I am glad that the court will take my rights into consideration, and not just my employee's. Also, you are really getting high and mighty about privacy rights in the EU. I notice you live in the UK, a country where you put surveillance cameras on street corners and in the tube. I read recently that a typical Londoner using public transportation is photographed an average of 400 times on their commute to and from work. Isn't that an gross violation of privacy? IMHO, it is, and I am much more comfortable with the United States or Israel where that simply isn't permitted or legal. > Not if you want to keep your company it isn't; recording phone calls is > restricted by law even in the Unregulated States, though many states are > still pretty lax about it. Not so. It is a matter of state law, and different states have different procedures. Also, before you call us the "Unregulated States" you really need to read our federal, state, county, and municipal laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances. I think you are in for quite a surprise. I suspect we are every bit as regulated as you are, if not more so. >> If the EU has its head so far up its hindquarters that it doesn't >> allow private employers to monitor and regulate the use of company >> infrastructure, then no wonder the EU is so far uh..."behind." > Behind... yep, our bubble's much smaller than your bubble. Which means > you've got further to fall... Actually not. The EU as a whole and the US are directly comparable in size and population. >> I'd tell that gal in Belgium if she wants to do the right thing by >> her employer, but is hamstrung by stupid EU "privacy" laws -- log >> everything anyway, perform the analysis, and simply be extremely >> careful whom she shows it to and who she tells about it. > i.e. don't mention it to the people whose human rights she's violating, or > the employer who'll fire her for doing so, or the police who would fine > the company into the ground for allowing her to do so? You have a very broad definition of human rights, don't you? In fact, if you really look at this, you are defending corporate and societal rights. Bravo! You have come full circle. Now, reevaluate what you are saying and realize that you, too, are advocating a balance between individual and societal rights. Now we have common ground to continue the discussion from in a civilized way. Oh, and yes, I agree with your point, just not the choice of the wording "human rights". To me, that has always meant individual rights. > Better that than a culture where employers feel entitled or even obliged > to spy on their staff, rather than TRUSTING them to do the jobs for which > they are paid... I think you have a very unrealistic view. We have such logs where I wo
[issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
Hi, Michelle, and everyone else, > I frankly have *not* liked it at all as an everyday tool, it's > been surprisingly hard to get simple things to work, and the fun > component is definitely hard to find. Part of this certainly is the > laptop itself - sound still doesn't work, of course the internal > modem is useless, and the internal NIC card, although I've gotten the > drivers, I can't get that to work either. That's part of the problem, > though - hardware compatibility. Actually, I find Linux hardware compatibility, especially with Red Hat, to be very, very good. I have three different models of Toshiba laptops and *everything* works. OK, I had to download some drivers and recompile the kernel to make the PCMCIA floppy work on the two Librettos I have, but even that wasn't hard with the tools and instructions Red Hat kindly provides. Version 2.2.17 and up of the kernel have complete Toshiba support, meaning I can control any hardware or BIOS function just as easily as I could if I ran Windows, and excellent utilities have been written to do just that. I know people who have had equally good experiences with IBM Thinkpads, Sony Vaios, and Dell Inspirons. That isn't bad, is it? Also, your "of course the internal modem is useless" is *not* an of course. IBM has released drivers for their Winmodems, and there are other winmodem drivers as well. I know the Lucent winmodem in my Mom's desktop (it came with it) *does* work, although I think it negatively affects her system performance. Does Linux work with everything in a Windows-oriented world? Of course not, but it works with most things, and if someone does a little bit of smart shopping before they buy, or better yet, buys with Linux preloaded, there are a whole lot of options out there. > And some things (like burning CDs, and a few others) I > need to boot up OS 9 alone to get working. But I know that will > change (quickly) with time. It's no problem to burn CDs on my Linux box. Anyone else??? > I've also been reading a bit, and it seems there is this buzz around > about whether or not Linux will make it as a desktop OS - and that > the lack of good, solid apps (like an office suite) is limiting it's > adoption. The only area where Linux is still lacking apps is in the area of children's education software. The certainly is no lack of quality office suites: KOffice is really impressive, StarOffice isn't bad (if a bit slow), ApplixWare isn't bad either, and the WordPerfect 2000 Suite (the standard where I work) is tolerable, though WordPerfect 8 was certainly more stable. The Gnome Office suite is in development, too, with AbiWord already quite usable, with Dia as an acceptable alternative to Visio, and with a first class spreadsheet in Gnumeric. By my count that makes five office suites to choose from. The only thing missing for some people is the "Microsoft" name on the front of the box, and the matching high price tag. > Linux is a no-brainer on the server side - but will it > survive as a desktop OS? I'm really having questions. If I, who > describe myself as a total geek, and feel really positive about Linux > am generally not happy with it as a desktop, what about people who > aren't as geeky? Is there hope? Linux passed the Mom test for me: my non-technical Mom could use it and have no problems with it. The thing is she did not have to install it. I set up everything for her. She hasn't even had to pop up a terminal window. She lives in KDE, and runs her WordPerfect, her Netscape 6.01, and not much else. She uses the character selector applet and the keyboard mapping applet, both of which come with KDE 2. She isn't exactly a power user. Still... it made her system faster and did away with hanging problems she had in Windows, so she's happy. > How many of you don't use Linux as > your sole everyday desktop OS? [Raises hand] Me, at least at home. At work I am 90% on an Irix box and 10% on Windows (for Lotus Notes and Remedy). Will Linux make it as a desktop OS? Yes, if Microsoft gets too greedy and more companies switch over. People use what they use at work, for the most part. Also, it's going to have to get to the point where you can walk into CompUSA or even Best Buy and have a choice between a Windows or a Linux system. Honestly, we're a long way from that yet. All the best, Caity Caitlyn M. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Analyst (919) 541-4441 Lockheed Martin (a contractor for the US EPA) Michelle Murrain cc:
[issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
Hi yet again Michelle :) This has been a really good running dialogue, hasn't it? > I have to disagree on this one, being a pretty constant user of all > three major OSes. Linux is by far the hardest of the 3 to setup, > configure and deal with on a day to day basis, I think. This, IMHO varies dramatically by distribution and by version of each distro. TurboLinux, for example, has much poorer tools than Caldera or Red Hat for doing basic system configuration. I specifically mean graphical, plain English, user friendly tools. I can edit all my configuration files myself at the command line, especially since that level of knowledge is part of my job requirements. Most users, even moderately knowledgeable ones, can't, at least not without doing some research. Also, take a look at harddrake in Mandrake 7.0 and look again in 8.0. The difference is day and night. Ditto COAS in Caldera. Linux now, in the latest versions of the friendly distros, isn't hard any more. Let's put it this way: I can walk my Mom through things like changing her default screen resolution. Of course, she didn't know that was what she wanted. She just wanted everything "bigger". :) > But > when I have to deal with a linux glitch or setup of some sort, it's > often (but not always) a much more major time suck, and more > challenging, than dealing with the same issues in either windows or > mac. My experience vis a vis Windows is just the opposite. I don't know how many times I've seen our very experienced NT admins at work throw their hands in the air and either remove and reinstall an app or even the entire OS. You just don't have to do that in Linux. There's no registry to get corrupted, for example. > Case in point: Do you think that pointing at an icon, clicking the > "Next" button a few times, perhaps reading a little instructions is > harder (or anywhere near as hard) than the following scenario that I > have been through lots: > tar -xzf some_new_software.tar.gz > less INSTALL/README > ./configure --with who knows how many options > oops, forgot to set some environment variables > ./configure --with options > make > make install > Or: > rpm -i new_software.rpm > oops, dependency problem - go to rpmfind.com > rpm -i dependent_software.rpm > rpm -i the_other_dependency.rpm > oops missing package - go back to rpmfind.com > rpm -i final_package.rpm > rpm -i new_software.rpm Nope, but that (for many if not most ordinary users) is the past, not the present. In Mandrake 8 I can preconfigure all the FTP sites I need into the software manager. Now, when I download one package in the example above the procedure is: Open Konqueror Click on icon for app I just downloaded Software manager opens up, finds anything I'm missing from my sources, and installs the lot Done That really is every bit as easy as Windows. Again, it passes the Mom test quite nicely. Mandrake's shrink wrapped Power Pack edition includes 7 CDs by the way, some commercial apps, and about 2,300 open source ones. Unless you need some specific commercial app, t'ain't a whole lot of downloading (except for upgrades) left for most folks. SuSe is great that way, too. What is SuSe up to? About 10 CDs in whatever they call their deluxe edition, isn't it? I've heard this one a lot: Joe user: "I tried Linux and gave up on it. It's too hard to use." Me: "Oh, when was that? Do you know which kind of Linux you tried?" Joe user: "A few years ago. It was Red Hat, maybe 5 or something?" Me: "It's completely changed since then." When Linux first hit the press it *was* hard to use, and got a really bad rap with some people, which is now undeserved, IMHO. > Star Office, which is a huge program but has a nice GUI install was > FAR easier to install than most little packages via rpm if you run > into an (almost inevitable eventually) dependecy problem. See above. If the dependency problem is automagically resolved, most users won't even know it existed. Oh, and no, it doesn't work 100% of the time. Just 95% or so at this point. It needs to get better yet. The thing is, I think by the time Linux does make it as a desktop OS, it will be so close to 100% that it will be good enough, and not just in Mandrake or Progeny Debian, but in all the major distros. > I agree that KOffice has huge *potential*. It's just unrealized at > this point. I've used the earlier versions, mostly. However, the most > recent version I tried didn't do so well with an (admittedly complex) > Word document. KOffice isn't alone. Even StarOffice, which has the best MS Word filter I have ever seen, breaks down on really complex documents. The key is to migrate people off Microsoft everything and to get them to use something like HTML to save and send their documents to Windows users. Unless we break Microsoft's stranglehold not only on the desktop but on some apps as well, nothing will matter. > OK, I'll be upfront and say I have yet to try installing > Linux-Mandrake 8.0, or the
Re: [issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
Hi, Abe, and everyone else, [I'm posting this to issues only, since it's non-technical] > in response to the idea of bringing linux into the mainstream ... i've > found that LUG participation focuses in almost all cases primarily on this > cause. the majority of time i've spent at lug meetings has been educating > the new comers to linux or else thinking of ways to invite more people. The local LUG here has a reputation for being incredibly condescending to newbies, especially women, and just plain rude. I'm told it's gotten better since I was involved a couple of years ago, but at that time they were not exactly good representatives of the community. Caity ___ issues mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
RE: [issues] Re: [techtalk] Desktop OS?
KCB wrote: > Caitlyn Martin said: >> I'm going to tackle this from two angles: First, 90% of computer users >> can't install *any* operating system. They buy their system with the OS >> preinstalled. This is why getting Linux-based systems into stores is so >> critical. IMHO, the semi-savvy non-geeks who actually try to install an OS >> are a small fraction of the market, and therefore not vital. > This bothers me, I guess because I belong to that small fraction that you're > dismissing. Ouch! I guess I should repost what I said to James once: English is not my native language and sometimes things come out way wrong. I don't mean to dismiss anyone, and I apologize if I offended you. I sure didn't mean to. You are tremendously important to the community because you want to learn, and you are the type of person who, if you have a positive experience with Linux, will likely praise it to other non-geeks. Non-geeks can say to me, "Yeah, but you do this for a living." With someone like you, who can honestly say you were not a geek when you started with Linux, that objection disappears. You are living proof that Linux is for mortals. Besides, since you're here and you want to learn, we'll make a real geek out of you yet :) Seriously, I do not want to underestimate the importance of people like you. Having said that, you are part of a group that may not be statistically significant enough to matter when it comes to mainstreaming an OS. To compare, I really enjoy the music of the group Earthstar. Only one of their albums was reissued on CD. I understand it had a run of 500 copies two years ago, and new copies are still readily available. The record company, though, is about out of business. If someone asks me if I think their other albums should be reissued, well... of course I'd love to see that happen. The problem is, I am statistically insignificant. How many people even remember Earthstar, let alone would buy CDs? > Is it really true that most people can't install an operating > system? The estimates I've read are 90% to 95%. I believe it. > Of course, I'm trying to remember the last time I might have done > that without the support of someone who *knows* what to do sitting right > next to me. I can't. So maybe I can't do it on my own either. Are you willing to learn? Does it interest you? If so, I'd say you are way ahead of most users. To me, the fact that you are on a list like this says your are way more interested than most. > Right now you can walk > into a computer store or go to Dell online (not that I recommend this) and > buy a computer that comes all preinstalled. All you have to do is follow the > color-coded system to plug the keyboard, mouse, and monitor in. That kind of > ease of use is what is needed for Linux (sacrilege!) before the average > computer user will consider it. It may be sacrilege, but I think you are 100% right. > I have never, in 12 years of > working in corporate environments, worked anywhere that didn't use Windows > and/or Office. That may have more to do with where I live (Seattle area) > than anything else, so I'd like to hear if that experience is not usual. Errr... I have. Six or eight years ago there were a lot of OS/2 shops out there. The US government agency I support still does not use MS Office. They use the Lotus SmartSuite except for word processing, where we use Corel WordPerfect. Most law firms use WordPerfect still, as do most government contractors (including my employer). The freight forwarder I worked for used the Lotus SmartSuite until they were bought out in 1997. The majority of their apps ran on HP-9000s running HP-UX, and they used Reflection/X to display them on the Windows desktop. Again, at the agency I support, many of the scientists have UNIX workstations, either SGI or Sun. A good friend who recommended me for my current job came here from a shop that used either Linux or Irix on the desktop, not Windows. Burlington Coat Factory threw Microsoft completely out in 1999 and uses Red Hat Linux on Dell PCs for their desktop, with ApplixWare as their office suite. Racal was studying the same idea last I heard. Need I go on? The vast majority of companies do use Windows on the desktop, but I think with Microsoft's new, greedy licensing scheme for Windows XP, that will begin to erode rapidly. Office has been losing market share slowly for the last two years. The last numbers I saw had it at 84% (still way dominant), with Corel up to 15%. I think right now there is a crack in the mighty Microsoft armor, for two reasons: really poor (arrogant) public relations on their part, and the big one: cost. Linux has a narrow window of opportunity, much as OS/2 had in 1994 and 1995. If IBM hadn't caved into Microsoft blackmail (threatening to withhold all Windows licenses from Big Blue) and dropped OS/2 marketing in 1995 the IT world might be different today. According to the accounts that came out after the IBM te
[issues] Career shifts MS->UNIX [was: WSJ article on Microsoft XP "feature"]*LONG*
Hi, Scott,, and everyone else, > Problem is, I work in a 100% MS shop. The > product was built on 2000 Server, SQL 2000 and ASP 3.0 with IIS 5.0. I have > to use ASP right now. This put's me in a odd situation with everything I > feel. I need this job and really think it will grow, but I want to do more > with the web site (that is what I work on.) I want to feel good about what I am doing-- > but the job market in this area is just about all MS. Where do you live? I really doubt that the market is 100% Microsoft anywhere in the US. Your shop, absolutely, but every shop? Microsoft only has 40% of the server market. Most of the rest is some flavor of UNIX. Having said that, I am not going to get down on you for working in an MS shop. Nor am I going to say you should suddenly up and leave. You likely don't have the *nix skillset to do that at this point, anyway, though everything you do with Linux, even at home, is helping you build good skills. IME, Microsoft people make x, *nix people make y (which is usually a bit more than x), and people who can do *both* earn more than either group. You are building in that direction, and you should look to do that every chance you can. Also, let me give you some encouragement. For the first 15 years of my career, I had zero *nix experience. I am a relative newcomer to Linux. In 1995 I was certified in OS/2, very strong in NT and Novell, and had zero UNIX (or Linux) experience, and no real desire to get any. Then our only UNIX admin went on medical leave, and when problems arose I was thrown into HP-UX, sink or swim, with nothing but documentation to help me. It was an *interesting* experience, and at that point, if anything, it convinced me that the difficulties involved with using UNIX were going to be it's undoing. I managed, but was pretty anti-UNIX at that point. Incidentally, when our UNIX person came back, she and I worked together pretty closely, and she gave me my very first look an Linux, a 3.x version or Red Hat with CDE as the UI. I was not terribly impressed. Before I left, in 1996, I did by a copy of the new Red Hat Linux 4.0 to give it a proper evaluation. I never installed it, and it's still on my bookshelf. In 1996 I went back to the company where I had started my career with as an IT Director. They had evolved into an HP-UX shop, with Windows only on the desktop. It was a relatively small IT department, and I always keep my hand in, technically, plus I had to supervise the developers and lead us into the Internet-centric world, so I learned HP-UX with a vengeance. The company was sold in 1997, and I had to move on. By that point I still thought that Microsoft would eventually make NT a true enterprise-level OS given enough time, and I still wasn't enamored with UNIX, though I certainly had a growing skillset and was very concerned about security issues in Windows NT. In early 1998 I took a job that forced me to pick up a great deal of UNIX system administration experience, mainly Solaris and BSDi. It was during that job that I finally gave up on OS/2 and went to Linux as my main OS at home, this time Red Hat 5.1. By then I was getting to where I liked UNIX, and getting to where I really had grave doubts about NT. That company was sold, too, and early in 1999 I was, once again, contemplating a new position. I went through an interview and a tech screening with Tivoli for a permanent IBM position (something I coveted), allegedly with a mix of NT, Novell, UNIX, and legacy OS/2 skills required. The tech screening focused heavily on Solaris, which worried me, but I did OK and was called in for a full day of interviews. That day went well, perhaps too well. By the end of the day they were talking to me about coming in as a UNIX guru. I felt totally unqualified, no matter how many questions I had answered correctly. When I got called back for a final interview and discussed the position with my boss-to-be I got very cold feet, expressed my concerns about my lack of skillset, and backed out despite a very good offer. I took a more NT/Novell-centric contact position elsewhere in IBM. In retrospect, it was a huge mistake. I could have handled the Tivoli job, but I totally lacked confidence in my own abilities. The saving grace of the IBM contract was that I was the only person with Solaris experience, and the customer I was supporting had a Solaris-based Checkpoint firewall. I also had firewall experience (Gauntlet and Raptor), so that became mine to administer, and I also got to be a backup admin for a couple of AIX boxes. By the time that contract ended a year and a half later I was a convert. I believed (and still believe) that Linux is the future. When I left I wanted a UNIX position. I started on my current job last October, and it, thankfully is an excellent permanent position. Here I am very much considered a UNIX/Linux guru (or should I say gurumai?) and I wrote the standards for Linux system configurat
