Linux-Advocacy Digest #510, Volume #25 Sun, 5 Mar 00 13:13:17 EST
Contents:
Re: Salary? (Peter Morris)
Re: Giving up on NT ("Todd")
Re: Giving up on NT ("Todd")
Re: BSD & Linux (Joe Siemens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Morris)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:44:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I suggest 2 things:
1. Charge what you think you're worth in that job. US$20/hr? US$40/hr?
What? If you feel quite happy getting US$15/hr and then find that
you're being undervalued in this position as everyone is earning more
than you, I expect you'd be a little miffed. Am I right? And yet you
were quite happy to accept the US$15/hr in the first place. People are
so greedy.
2. Don't they tell you what they're prepared to give you and then you
negotiate from there?
Having said that I'd guess that as you've left school and it's an
admin job I'd go for about GB£20K which would be about US$30K which
works out at about ....oh dear, US$10.27/hr. Perhaps I have my sums
wrong.
PAM.
__________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________
>Sorry if this is OT for these forums, but I really don't know where
>to post a question like this... I find myself in the somewhat
>embarassing position of stepping into a job as a Linux administrator
>and having no idea of how much I should be asking for, in terms of
>salary. Vital stats:
>
>Experience: 4.5 years running production Linux and UnixWare servers for
>my college, while a student. Paid positions, but still student work. A
>about a year working for a pre-launch Internet start-up as an admin, and
>working as a PC Tech for a retail chain. I make about $10/hr at all of
>my jobs.
>
>The job: Southern California; running ~20 production and development
>servers for a high-profile operation; Linux x86 and Solaris SPARC
>platforms. It's a well-established multinational corporation operating
>well in the black.
>
>I'll be going into this job straight out of school, and if it works out
>(fingers crossed!) I'll likely be staying for a while; what they do is
>what I'm all about, and it looks like a perfect match for me. BUT...
>
>I don't want to short-change myself going in. In my (limited!)
>experience, you stand a much better chance of getting what's fair if you
>demand it at the onset; if you realize a year into the job that you're
>not making the market's wage, it's typically a lot more difficult to get
>a substantial raise, no?
>
>So... Any suggestions as to salary? I would greatly appreciate hearing
>from those who might have some insight into this. Now that Linux has
>finally started to pay off (been using it since SLS was "it" and never
>thought I'd see this level of penetration!) I find I don't know how much
>my Linux abilities should be compensated.
>
>Thanks!
>
>- Robert Nichols
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:15:49 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89or2p$n1f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <89n6cb$v66$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:89ml58$5b1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:22:27 +0100, Lars Träger <Fam.Traeger@t-
> > > online.de> wrote:
> > > > >Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> To sum up, with each and any application i've used on the Mac,
> > > I've been
> > > > >> beating with multitasking issues. While, on Windows9x, i
> > > experience none of
> > > > >> these multitasking issues [I don't use QT].
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So IME, I repeat IME, multitasking on the Mac is far from great
> > > with
> > > > >> different sets of applications/tasks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If it's not the fault of the OS, then many of the Mac apps are
> not
> > > so
> > > > >> brilliantly coded. Happy now ?
> > > > >
> > > > >I didn't say that the Mac's multitasking doesn't suck, I said Win
> > > 9x's
> > > > >does. Happy now?
> > > >
> > > > Sucks vs. mebbe sucks more, all in the context of users
> > > > that very likely don't care either way. Otherwise, they
> > > > would be running Linux or NT.
> > >
> > > GACK! NT also sucks. Try to get an NT to display more than 16 colors
> > > for its icons when it is in 256 color mode. Bottom line is, you
> can't.
> >
> > By the way, there is an option for this in Properties-FX.
> >
> > Also, most people are using True Color or 16-bit color these days as
> video
> > cards can support these modes easily with full acceleration.
> >
> > So, NT can display more than 16 colors in icons.
>
> Not in 256 color mode. MOST people in this company are NOT using true
> color mode unless they want low resolution. See, a big business buys
> just what it needs. I have three machines and none have better than 256
> color at the resolutions I have to use them at.
>
> So, yes NT can display more than 16 colors for icons, BUT NOT IN 256
> COLOR MODE. Sheesh!
>
> > > As for speed. Basically there is very little. NT is slower the 95.
> >
> > Not according to the benchmarks that measure graphics and business
> > performance.
> >
> > Just recently, benchmarks that measured 98/NT and 2000 came out, do
> you want
> > to know what scored highest? 2000.
> >
> > Second? NT.
> >
> > Last? 9x.
>
> Well I have 95, 98, and NT. Which scores slowest in realworld? NT. Next
> 95. The fastest is 98 because I hardly do anything with that sucker.
>
> > > I
> > > have an NT, 98, and 95 system side-by-side here at work. NT is the
> > > slowest hands down (they are all 400 Mhz systems). Talking to one of
> > > our guru's here, he 'splained that it has to do with the drivers -
> they
> > > are much more complex on NT than they are on 95. As a result they
> are
> > > slower.
> >
> > That's a load of crap.
>
> Oh. I guess I should believe you than my two lying eyes.
You don't have to believe me... just check the benchmarks that so many mags.
have done... 2000 consistently beats NT on the same hardware, and NT
consistently beats 9x on the same hardware.
That's where I got *my* info. from, not just in advocacy groups.
> > NT's drivers *are* more complex than 95, that is true. But if you
> actually
> > measure performance, NT will beat 9x hands down given the proper
> amount of
> > memory... usually 64MB or over.
>
> If you set the conditions right and you make sure it never has to swap
> memory and you do this and that and whatever it will run faster.
Most businesses would be happy to spend another $300 dollars for the proper
amount of memory to have the *fastest* configuration they can get.
Considering that you have to pay thousands of dollars for brand-name
servers... a couple hundred extra in memory to make sure you are running
fast is a good investment.
> Sorry,
> my world doesn't revolve around "if's and but's". I'm based in reality,
> not benchmarks.
Benchmarks are used to measure performance... no if's ands or buts... 2000
was the fastest, hands down.
> > How much memory are you using, anyway?
>
> 64 MB.
>
> > > There are days when my system is literally crawling and all I have
> open
> > > are 5 apps and several directories. Hell, I've had 10 apps open on
> my
> > > Mac and have NEVER witnessed the kind of sluggishness I've seen in
> NT.
> >
> > Again, how much memory are you using? Did you check the performance
> monitor
> > in NT? Is your system even configured correctly?
>
> Yes.
>
> >I doubt it, given your "expert's" false information.
>
> First, we are an international corporation that sells systems that run
> NT to other major international corporations. These systems, for the
> most part, have to run 24 hours a day.
We are an international corporation that *makes* servers, workstations,
2,4,6, and 8 CPU systems that were designed exclusively to run NT/2000. We
also make drivers for our hardware (ie... display drivers, printer drivers,
and the SMP HAL's for the machine).
In addition, we also have the license to UNIX and make some of the fastest
UNIX machines out there.
We also support integrated NT/2000 and UNIX environments... so we know
mission critical.
> I think my expert's information is probably a whole lot more
> trustworthy than yours.
Highly doubtful, given what he/she said.
> And from what I have seen, has been pretty much
> on the mark.
Not from what I can see.
> > > My manager is hyped up on W2K based on, literally, the hype. "If
> they
> > > can do this... if they can do that..." I have something novel to
> > > propose. Why doesn't MS sit down and for ONE year spend all of its
> time
> > > and effort on fixing the bugs and security leaks in the software
> they
> > > have already published. It starting to get to the point where you
> know
> > > they are lying because their mouths are open...
> >
> > So far, people are quite impressed with 2000... I've been scanning
> the 2000
> > groups, and yes, while there are installation problems with drivers,
> people
> > who have supported systems are quite surprised and happy that 2000
> really is
> > the OS that they have hoped it would be. Check it out yourself.
>
> If it is better than NT, then I hope we will switch to it. However, I
> don't see that happening until AT LEAST next year. Most likely it will
> be 2002 before we have everyone on 2000.
We are also moving slowly... probably 2001 for us. We have over 100,000
employees running NT... it's gonna take a while. Some of the hardware also
needs to be upgraded, software needs to be tested, new drivers have to be
developed, etc... it's gonna take at least a year.
But we are committed to doing it because there are some many advantages over
NT.
I don't think I need to name all of them.
-Todd
>
> L
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:20:15 +0800
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Todd wrote:
> > By the way, there is an option for this in Properties-FX.
> >
> > Also, most people are using True Color or 16-bit color these days as
video
> > cards can support these modes easily with full acceleration.
> >
> > So, NT can display more than 16 colors in icons.
> >
> > > As for speed. Basically there is very little. NT is slower the 95.
> >
> > Not according to the benchmarks that measure graphics and business
> > performance.
> >
> > Just recently, benchmarks that measured 98/NT and 2000 came out, do you
want
> > to know what scored highest? 2000.
> >
> 2000 is hardly a fast system though. My Linux system boots in less time
> thanks to the modifications I made to my kernel build.
My HP calculator boots far faster than that, I'm sure... what's your point?
That Linux has far fewer features and thus takes less time to load? Ok, you
win.
>
> > Second? NT.
> >
> > Last? 9x.
> To be expected
>
> >
> > > I
> > > have an NT, 98, and 95 system side-by-side here at work. NT is the
> > > slowest hands down (they are all 400 Mhz systems). Talking to one of
> > > our guru's here, he 'splained that it has to do with the drivers -
they
> > > are much more complex on NT than they are on 95. As a result they are
> > > slower.
> >
> > That's a load of crap.
> >
> > NT's drivers *are* more complex than 95, that is true. But if you
actually
> > measure performance, NT will beat 9x hands down given the proper amount
of
> > memory... usually 64MB or over.
> But Linux will beat NT when running with less than 64mb of ram and *BSD
> will beat NT when running with more than 64mb of ram.
I agree Linux will beat NT in low memory configurations... probably less
than 32MB... However, how do you really compare speed given that there are
hardly any benchmarks out there that are exactly the same for Linux and NT??
Apache vs. IIS? Totally different architecture (but IIS+NT won that
mindcraft benchmark anyway :)
> >
> > How much memory are you using, anyway?
> >
> > > There are days when my system is literally crawling and all I have
open
> > > are 5 apps and several directories. Hell, I've had 10 apps open on my
> > > Mac and have NEVER witnessed the kind of sluggishness I've seen in NT.
> >
> I experience lag whenever I run AIM.
>
>
> > Again, how much memory are you using? Did you check the performance
monitor
> > in NT? Is your system even configured correctly? I doubt it, given
your
> > "expert's" false information.
> NT shouldn't need 64mb of ram to run "properly". No OS can justify such
> needs.
Why? An OS with lots of features will require more RAM. If you want to be
stuck in the 1990's, run a IBM PC with 640K of RAM... DOS didn't take much
memory at all and booted quite fast... of course, with very limited
capabilities.
Someday, when our OSes require gigabytes of memory... we will look back and
laugh at what you just said :)
> Linux and BeOS can run in 16mb of ram and comfortably in 32mb.
So what! My HP calculator runs with much less RAM that that! And the
commodore 64 only required 20K!! Does that mean they have better OSes?
-Todd
> > > My manager is hyped up on W2K based on, literally, the hype. "If they
> > > can do this... if they can do that..." I have something novel to
> > > propose. Why doesn't MS sit down and for ONE year spend all of its
time
> > > and effort on fixing the bugs and security leaks in the software they
> > > have already published. It starting to get to the point where you know
> > > they are lying because their mouths are open...
> >
> > So far, people are quite impressed with 2000... I've been scanning the
2000
> > groups, and yes, while there are installation problems with drivers,
people
> > who have supported systems are quite surprised and happy that 2000
really is
> > the OS that they have hoped it would be. Check it out yourself.
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > >
> > > L
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
>
> --
> You say it's cool to be yourself,
> but you want me to be like you
> and that is not being myself
> http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
> --
> Mac and Windows users, make some free cash:
> http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HRK719
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 12:15:57 -0500
From: Joe Siemens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
by wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Today I'm just wondering about various BSDs I've seen mentioned. My
> company's servers run NetBSD and they run fine. Can someone explain the
> difference between freebsd, netbsd, openbsd, bsd-lite ? I've also seen
> 4bsd and bsd4.* mentioned. What are the major variants of BSD today and
> what are their differences ?
>
Well, they are both unix. Dammit man, I love them all. I mean, I
love unix, right? FreeBSD and Linux are both unices. Do you love
running unix too? If you like unix asmuch as I, you will like
FreeBSD. I really don't know what to say... People ask me all the
time which is better, Solaris, FreeBSD, or Linux. Although I strongly
feel that FreeBSD amd Linux are pseudo-unices (because they're free
and unix wannabes), it's still much better than that pile of steaming
shit you call Windows.
Mainly, the differences are that there is only one FreeBSD
distribution, but there are way too fucking many Linux distros. I
thought RedHat was for losers, because it does way too much
hand-holding. AND, RedHat usually dumps too much shit onto my HD.
With FreeBSD, you get a very good unix without all the frills. RedHat
always insists on second-guessing what the user wants, and in the
process, always over-installs, which creates a security hole. (Because
theere's too many services started in RedHat.)
I like FreeBSD better, because it is a descendent of the original BSD
code. It seems like Linux' networking is not as good as FreeBSD's,
because of its BSD TCP/IP stack heritage. Also, FreeBSD is better
than Linux at football. If you pit the FreeBSD developers against the
Linux developers, FreeBSD will dominate at football. Of course, I
feel strongly that the Solaris team could beat both teams, because
they're both pseudo unices compared to the excellent Solaris. They
are unix wannabes because they run on Wintel machines.
I went out to a ballpark one time, and I saw 2 teams, FreeBSD, and
Linux. Linux scored a touchdown early, but FreeBSD's offensive line
wore down Linux' defense. FreeBSD began to pile up a lot of yards on
Linux. Then, one of the FreeBSD linebackers sacked Linus Torvalds,
the Linux QB, and took him out of the game. FreeBSD won the game,
38-20. It was a blowout.
I really don't know what to say, other than we can sit here and talk
about it all day and night until we get hoarse, much like the annoying
bastard commentator Brent Mussburger. In the end, though, the only
way to find out which team is better is to put on your helmet and
shoulder pads, and play for each team to find out which team is
better.
Summary: just do it. Just install FreeBSD, and find out for yourself
which is better. Oh, and Brent Mussburger is a pussy! Ha ha ha! Oh,
and Rev. Don Kool is a real cool guy. He knows a lot about unix.
joe kool
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
