Linux-Advocacy Digest #748, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: US politics (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (mlw)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Producing Quality Code (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Bjørnar Bolsøy)
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
(George Richard Russell)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Donn Miller)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Tim Kelley)
UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (Donn Miller)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Tim Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US politics
Date: 22 Mar 2000 13:32:11 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:56:19 -0500, DGF wrote:
>that liberalism as a movement, when it gets what it wants will move on to
>some other cause and then another and then another for all eternity. That's
You could say the same thing about conservatism. But that doesn't mean that
all conservatives are like Pat Buchannan.
>eliminiate freedom of speech the "decent" liberals sit idly by and do
>nothing while libertarians, conservatives and other non-leftists have their
>mouths shut by the liberal GESTAPO in American universities.
I didn't see any such thing. While I was in Texas, I saw right wing
nut preachers come to air their views on premarital sex, homosexuality,
and back to front baseball caps. I can't say the crowd gave them a warm
reception, but certainly a fair hearing ( / debate )
>Really? I did not know that. News to me. As far as I know the strongest
>advocates of birth control are communists(as in China)
The Chinese government are not "liberals". They are not even communists.
They are "state capitalists". There are entrepreneurs in China -- this in
itself means that they are not communist. The entrepreneurs are hand picked
by the government. ( IOW they are a very corrupt capitalist police state )
Let's take a look at some of the characteristics of the Chinese government
system:
* sweeping police powers
* strong punitive sanctions against "sexual immorality"
* overly punitive criminal justice system
* lack of social mobility. wealth is a birthright, not something you
earn
* extremely wide gaps between rich and poor
to me, this looks very much like an out-of-whack right wing government,
even if the US like to call them communists.
>who for example want to give condoms for free in public schools. I do not
>recall any "conservative" wanting to use force to implement birth control.
No, they want to use force *against* it. The liberals don't want to
force anyone to make a choice one way or the other, but the conservatives
want to use the law to force people not to use birth control ( whether it's
by restricting access to contraception or criminalising abortion )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:38:20 -0500
mr_rupert wrote:
>
> Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
> OS?
>
> http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/
>
> "Why Windows NT Server 4.0 continues to exist in the enterprise
> would be a topic appropriate for an investigative report in the
> field of psychology or marketing, not an article on information
> technology. Technically, Windows NT Server 4.0 is no match for
> any UNIX operating system, not even the non-commercial BSDs or
> Linux."
>
I actually think about this from time to time. And it is worse that you
might imaging at first.
Think now about an application which works initially, but its usership
grows quickly.
If you developed your system with Linux or BSD, you could easily
re-compile it to work on Sun or SGI boxes. With Windows NT, you have to
re-design it to work in a clustered environment, because a single PC has
dreadful I/O characteristics.
Even after you do that, you are still stuck with the inherent
limitations of the PC platform, only more of them.
Nope, Linux or BSD is the way to go. It will handle 95% of everything
you want a server to do. The last 5% you can, simply, recompile and move
to a better I/O platform.
And if your application needs clustering? Linux and FreeBSD have all the
tools needed to do that as well, and these tools also work on the better
hardware with different operating systems.
So why NT? Probably because they didn't know any better. Maybe they were
MCSE's and only learned about NT. Maybe they are used to PC Anywhere and
don't know about telnet. Maybe they only know MS SQL. Who knows? The one
thing that MS does well is market their products. If only they had
products that live up to their marketing.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:40:52 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b9926$e0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Certainly have CISCO didn't exist in 1980.
>
> O.K. since the mid-80's then. Pick nits :-)
>
> > > Even the types of
> > > UNIX being used, the user interfaces, and the management
> > > functionality has changed radically, even the scheduling
> > > has become more sophisticated - supporting multilevel cache,
> > > SCSI multi-spindle scheduling, and RAM.
> >
> > Of course there has been evolution in
> > the platform, but they've built on
> > foundations they created in the 80s
> > it doesn't make sense to rip everything
> > out and start anew on top of a heavily customsied kernel.
>
> But it makes sense to scuttle existing UNIX servers if they
> are WEB servers!
>
Where have I ever said that people should jump from one OS to the another
without good reason. I just take issue with ignorance expressed as operating
system advocacy. I've also been known to take some of the more wild-eyed NT
advocates to task for overstating a case. Anyway, for the record, I was a
UNIX user long before I ever touched NT, and I still use both on a regular
basis and don't have a partivcular one way or the other in terms of what I
would recommend to a client, the recommendations would be based on what they
plan to do, what level of in house skills they ahve and what their budget
is.
> It makes sense to ignore code that has been field proven for
> 20 years and use Microsoft's latest Kernel, newest infrastructure
> tools, and totally new APIs instead!
>
If you don't have existing UNIX infrastructure and expertise, it certainly
makes sense to look at the world with open eyes.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:41:04 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> IMO, QT is certainly not "low quality". What is "low quality" about it ?
>
> And what superior alternatives to QT / KDE have been developed on BSD ?
I think Qt is actually pretty nice -- it's really easy to creat custom
widgets and stuff. I dabbled in Motif for a while, and I can see some
parallels between Qt and Xt. For example, a QApplication is similar
to an XtAppContext in Xt. XtManageChild() is very similar to
QWidget::Show(), and XtAppMainLoop() is like Qt's
QApplication::exec().
The aspect that makes Qt more painless, of course, is the fact that is
a C++ toolkit (and more modern, obviously). Since I'm used to Xt, I
can compare it to Qt, and the really low lying principles are the
same, except Qt is using signals/slots instead of callbacks. I still
think Xt is a nice, although old, toolkit -- it has a nice flow to
it. It's a little dated, but I think the principles are sound, as I
can see the principles in it are still relavent in today's toolkits.
Well, Xt-based widget sets kind of have that retro-look, if you know
what I mean. I guess Open Look was ahead of its time, because it
bypassed Xt altogether, much like the newer toolkits.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: 22 Mar 2000 11:33:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>> I'm fairly sure I wouldn't accept such an offer anyway. Leastways,
>> not unless mlw could be very persuasive on just how interesting
>> working for him would be...
>
> What do you call interresting?
It sort of varies from time to time. Developing hardware verification
toolsets currently is interesting (and a good thing too, since that's
my job.) I have other interests too. But if you want to pitch your
offer putatively (just general terms; I've got over a year left here
and I'm not likely to move before the end of that) then I'd say if I
think it is interesting.
IMHO image compression, AI, scientific data analysis and anything
involving deep database development are not interesting. YMMV, of
course.
> Besides, it would not be for me, but with me.
That wasn't quite clear from the bits of your messages that I saw.
(**!%& newsfeed!)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:45:38 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b9cqi$i31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <v9LB4.22$US1.296@client>,
> "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > That's very interesting since PCI was first used on the MAC and
> > > the MicroVAX - neither of which were Intel based.
> >
> > That's just complete rubbish, the
> > first implementations of PCI came with the
> > release of the Pentium processor. PCI based MACs came a lot later,
> and PCI
> > slots in MicroVAX are figment of your imagination.
>
> You are appearantly correct. I did some reasearch.
Gosh, how radical.
> Here are some reasons for my confusion.
>
> http://www.pcisig.com/membership/members.html
DEC was a member because they wanted a bus for Alpha based workstations and
low-end servers that would not requyire them and thier partners to reinvent
wheels.
>
>
> SCSI is more expensive that EIDE because it never reached the
> economies of scale. Many SCSI vendors and controller vendors
> were expecting Microsoft to officially bless SCSI for NT 3.x and
> Windows 95 - which would have made SCSI a major player.
>
> For whatever reason, Microsoft didn't bless SCSI on Workstations,
> and didn't start pushing SCSI on servers until NT 4.0. Even then,
> Microsoft pushed RAID in Hardware - which eliminated the advantage
> of controllers that were able to store 7 drives per cable and the
> ability to install multiple cards in the box.
>
Given the relative sales of NT vs. Windows 95/98 in the time periods
concerned, the blessing of SCSI for NT would have had not effect on market
dynamics anyway. If you look at most of the players in the 3.51 and early
years of 4.o selling NT Workstation based systems, they came with SCSI as
the default and everyvbody turned their nose up at IDE.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:47:08 GMT
In article <8b9gui$o85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - People wanted an operating system that their employees could
> work with, without having to smoke pot, grow a beard, and get
> fat on coffee and twinkies.
>
,
Isn't it funny how more women are attracted to that bearded, pot
head, pot belly guy than a handsome guy like you? Perhaps it could be
that stick you have up your ass.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 14:05:15 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:41:04 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> IMO, QT is certainly not "low quality". What is "low quality" about it ?
>>
>> And what superior alternatives to QT / KDE have been developed on BSD ?
>
>I think Qt is actually pretty nice -- it's really easy to creat custom
>widgets and stuff. I dabbled in Motif for a while, and I can see some
>parallels between Qt and Xt.
Early announcements about Qt dub it "a Motif-like C++ toolkit".
>The aspect that makes Qt more painless, of course, is the fact that is
>a C++ toolkit (and more modern, obviously).
I find also compared to gtk, QT code looks a lot cleaner.
GTK/GNOME have method names such as
gnome_app_set_contents , gtk_radio_button_new_with_label , etc.
The problem with this is because they're trying to do OO without C++,
they need to kludge the class names / namespaces / function overloading
directly into the function names. The result is a redundant ( and messy )
syntax.
C++ does this kind of thing under
the hood. ( ie objects know which namespace to call functions from, so
you don't need to specify it in function calls )
I'm curious as to whether GTK-- ( the C++ bindings ) are more elegant.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
From: Na (Bjørnar Bolsøy)
Date: 22 Mar 2000 15:07:14 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:
>>>For realtime systems AmigaOS won't do the trick as it isn't a
>>>realtime kernel. (Neither, of course, is Linux, Solaris,
>>>NT/W2000/98/95, etc, etc)
>
>> Of course depending on your definition of and requirement from
>> a realtime application. :)
>>
>Of course. But when it comes to industrial applications they won't
>cut it. Neither will the realtime versions of Linux someone
>mentioned. Don't get me wrong here, they are probably good, but
>there are dedicated small realtime OSes that are designed for the
>work.
Indeed.
>Did you know, BTW, that the Swedish military fighter Gripen (JAS)
>is run on PowerPC processors? There's an example of a real
>realtime system! :)
Cool! Steve, any idea what the Block52 Viper runs for its different
systems? :)
Regards...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:14:21 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:21:39 +0100, Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>DAMN! While I don't know about that particular model printer, I
I would. Canon under Linux isn't, well, exactly optimal.
>could've sworn that Creative Labs made a driver for SB live under Linux,
>and that it even came with my distro (SuSE 6.3)! My mistake.
Compare the functionality of the Win* driver vs the Linux one.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:14:22 GMT
On Wed, 22 , The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Well, those are server tasks. I the subject of this thread is "Linux
>>on the desktop" which, in my mind, refers to Linux being used to run
>>conventional desktop applications.
>
>Like spreadsheets? Gnumeric.
Call us when it reaches a release version, comes out of alpha and beta testing,
and has functionality equivalent to Windows 3.1 Works Suites.
>Word processors? Lyx is pretty good, so I've heard; AbiSoft; StarOffice.
> Emacs (sort of).
LyX - is emphatically not WYSIWYG. Its more a document formatter / typesetter.
AbiSoft - Wordpad on windows is free and better. When AbiWord reaches a mature
tested release, let us know.
StarOffice just is horrible. Usable, sure, but not nice.
You should mention kword, WordPerfect and Applixware if you wanted to make an
argument of it. Fwiw, kword is alpha, Wordperfect is only in 3rd place on
Windows Word processors, and Applixware is a niche product that existed since
for years, nothing better could be had for Unix.
>E-mail? Good old mutt and elm; Netscape (when it works); emacs.
All lacking in the warm fuzzie ease of use and setup stakes - Netscapes client,
essentially the same across platforms, sucks, and uses Motif.
Good GUI X11 mail readers (most desktops these days assume GUI - console is
just so retro) are Xfmail and Kmail.
>News? slrn, tin, trn. All pretty basic, but they do the job nicely.
> Netscape (when it works) if you absolutely, positively
> need pictures (such as viewing
> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape,
> or something like that :-) ).
> Also emacs.
Emacs is simply not an option for most casual users - the effort to learn to
use and setup emacs outweighs the benfits to the casual users. i.e Desktop.
Gravity and Forte have no mature equivalent on X11 - but Xagent, PAN, krn, knode
etc are getting closer. Also, SOffices newsreader. Its a browser / mail / news
reader as well as an Office suite. Shame it wants about 90Mb RSS.
>Text editing? vi, emacs, jed, joe, ked.
More comfortably, Nedit, gvim, kwrite
>Development? make, g++, emacs.
Kdevelop
>Web browsing? Netscape, kfm, Amaya, a few others such as Mnemonic
> and Mozilla Real Soon Now(tm). Also, emacs.
Netscape well, sucks.
kfm - for light usage, no java / javascript / plugins / funky layouts
amaya - not really usable
mnemonic - alpha, source tree currently not compilable.
mozzila - soon to be beta. Just like always. in 24days or less, now, though.
konquerer looks to be good too.
>Java? www.blackdown.org, kaffe/guavac.
Slow or incomplete or both. Lags behind Suns releases for Win32 / Solaris.
IBM do a JDK, GCJ is showing promise.
>LISP? Emacs. In fact, about the only thing emacs can't do is
> display dirty pictures :-) ) (and it probably could if
> someone codes up a LISP procedure that calls an external
> image viewer! :-) ).
How is lisp relevant to desktop usage? As a scripting language, you'd
give novices the fits. BASIC / python is much better for beginners.
Xemacs can load pictures, btw, just look at the splash screen.
>Games? Well, that's where Linux falls down, but there's a few
> out there: Quake III (available at Fry's Electronics!),
> Doom, and Quake I source code (which I for one haven't
> tried to compile yet). Linux would make a great
> gaming/server platform when Open/GL gets hot, though.
And he support is moer complete, the gaming API;s completed etc.
Things like ClanLib, the 3d sound API etc.
>So...why is Linux not ready for the desktop?
Too much like Unix of course. I mean, if you don't realise Emacs is not an
option for desktop usage, then you won't realise why linux isn't ready for the
desktop.
Most desktop users have never started a text editor, and frankly, a decent
desktop should remove the need unless their software developers.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 14:13:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner) writes:
:> : Don't be too sure about claiming this. Remember RedHat will be including
:> : tripwire with it's dist pretty soon and the other dists will follow, and
:> : the RedHat 6.2 beta defaults with a lot of things turned off that used to be
:> : turned on in the older RedHat 5.0-6.0 dists.
:>
:> RedHat will be doing something good for production system?
:> Disbelieve! They even don't include sudo by default. And tripwire
:> is in Debian for ages. If you are trying to compare Linux as
:> production system with real Unices like BSD and Solaris, you should
:> use Debian or Suse as comparation point. RedHat or Corel wouldn't
:> withstand even NT.
: Actually, I have been getting tripwire with RedHat since 4.2 and I
: don't use sudo.
In that case you should. Goodness knows why redhat seem to think that
you should work as root. It's incomprehensible.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 14:15:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 21 Mar 2000 20:26:50 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
:>Put the ulimit in /etc/profile if you want it to be global.
: Better -- if you're smart enough to use Redhat (-; you can use
: PAM to do this.
That's not better, it's worse. Would someone mind telling what use is
pam except for introducing another layer of redhat-style obsucrantism
that is likely to break at any moment.
Suuurrre I want my login to call a dynamic library, oh yeah. Like NOT.
Just say no.
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:30:51 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
George Richard Russell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 , The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Word processors? Lyx is pretty good, so I've heard; AbiSoft; StarOffice.
> > Emacs (sort of).
> StarOffice just is horrible. Usable, sure, but not nice.
>
> You should mention kword, WordPerfect and Applixware if you wanted to make an
> argument of it. Fwiw, kword is alpha, Wordperfect is only in 3rd place on
> Windows Word processors, and Applixware is a niche product that existed since
> for years, nothing better could be had for Unix.
I'm applying for a unix admin. job, and guess what format they want my
resume in? You guessed it, MS Word. I've tried Corel WP, and it's
not too bad. At least it's better than Star Office. I'm going to
download the Applixware demo now as I write this.
I'd rather use TeX, but in the real world, recruiters who recruit UNIX
admins want resumes in MS Word format. I hate it, but you figure, the
recruiters are picky, and they want Word, so I've gotta give them a
Word resume. Now, I've gotta guess which version of Word they want.
I sure hope WP can export to Word format decently, because I don't run
Windows.
> >Web browsing? Netscape, kfm, Amaya, a few others such as Mnemonic
> > and Mozilla Real Soon Now(tm). Also, emacs.
>
> Netscape well, sucks.
> kfm - for light usage, no java / javascript / plugins / funky layouts
Don't forget about Konqueror, from the KDE project. It's supposed to
support Java and JavaScript. I don't know if I want to run KDE, but
this Konqueror sounds decent if it supports Java and JavaScript as
claimed.
> amaya - not really usable
> mnemonic - alpha, source tree currently not compilable.
> mozzila - soon to be beta. Just like always. in 24days or less, now, though.
> konquerer looks to be good too.
>
> >Java? www.blackdown.org, kaffe/guavac.
>
> Slow or incomplete or both. Lags behind Suns releases for Win32 / Solaris.
>
> IBM do a JDK, GCJ is showing promise.
IBM's jikes is supposed to be pretty decent WRT speed. Also, Sun's
JDK port seems to be not too bad.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:18:22 -0600
mr_rupert wrote:
>
> Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
> OS?
For the same reasons we need 45 kinds of tylenol.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:37:23 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
You've got to love how they want your resume in MS Word format. I
hate Word and Windows, but yet some of these UNIX recruiters will
bitch and moan unless you email your resume in Word format. Oh well,
I guess I'm gonna have to download Corel WP and Applix demo. :-) From
there, I can try to export my resume to Word format.
This one recruiter was really whiney: "But I don't _LIKE_ resumes in
text format". I guess saying "You'll take it and like it" isn't an
option. Why do recruiters in the UNIX field always want resumes in
Word format?
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:37:16 GMT
You nut you pointed me to the case. That doesn't justify the spew you
put forth earlier in the thread. If you meant to deceive people that is
called lying. If you hadn't trimmed out all the falsehoods you put in
the thread, there would be plenty to pick apart here but since you are
an agent for M$ I'll let this die here you fool.
josco wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, David D. Huff Jr. wrote:
>
> > This individual is apparently historically deficient.
>
> As opposed to being intellectually deficient.
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3900/3932.htm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:40:16 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Better -- if you're smart enough to use Redhat (-; you can use
> : PAM to do this.
>
> That's not better, it's worse. Would someone mind telling what use is
> pam except for introducing another layer of redhat-style obsucrantism
> that is likely to break at any moment.
FreeBSD uses PAM. Don't know it it's enabled by default, though. I
don't think PAM is RedHat specific. I don't have time to find out
what it does in depth, because I'm busy working up a resume in MS Word
format for a unix recruiter. (Why do they always want them in Word
format?) Yeah, I hate doing it, but for some reason they want them in
Word format.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:24:40 -0600
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> My point was, that UNIX is ideal as a workhorse for managing heavy network
> traffic, and very large databases. But it's akward to use on the desktop
> (for the typical end user).
That's another load of FUD, there is NOTHING about unix that
makes it inherently poor at being a desktop OS. It is simply a
lack of attention and corporate greed that made it fail in that
arena (until linux came along).
You can't possibly hold this position WRT KDE. the only thing
keeping KDE/linux off the desktop at this point is lack of
applications. At least, that's the only reason it isn't on every
desktop where I work.
How many times do you have to repeat this lie, Edwards?
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
