Linux-Advocacy Digest #596, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Windows98 (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: OFFICIAL (Tim LaDuca)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why use Linux?
Re: Why use Linux? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:37:23 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:07:39 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>>>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> Mr Stumped proves once again that he can't tell the difference
>>>>> between a tool and a person. (Hint: animates can be enslaved, tools
>>>>> -- inanimates -- cannot.)
>>>> Prove it. The dictionary you cited didn't restrict the term slavery
>>>> to only applying to humans or animates, it merely said:
>>> Actually, you're the one making the extraordinary claim, Stump. Convince
>>> the world that code can be enslaved, or that by the alleged enslavement of
>>> code, developers are thereby enslaved.
>> You are arbitrarily redefining the argument.
>>
>> The liberty that the GPL is presumed to garauntee is for users
>> in general not merely "developers". The vendorlock imposed by
>> Win32, WinSock embrace & extend, msvc++ extensions, msMosiac++
>> plugins and msoffice formats are all excellent examples of
>> entrapment through obscurity.
>
>Don't confuse yourself. The 'liberty' of the GPL is meaningless to
>those who don't read, understand, and often modify or extend code. And
Bullshit. It is meaningful to anyone that runs a different OS
than the majority, it is meaningfull to anyone that runs a
different hardware platform than the majority, it is meaningful
to anyone that doesn't use the majority data authoring tools,
it is meaningful to anyone that doesn't use the majority
applications API.
>you're right about one thing in that statement: it's a *presumption*,
>not a reality.
...I'll be sure to chuckle and think of you the next time
I use my Tivo, my Dreamcast, a PSX or PSX/2 or play any of
Loki's games (especially if on a PPC).
[deletia]
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:38:12 GMT
On 11 Jul 2000 00:37:05 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 10 Jul 2000 11:12:30 -0500, Drestin Black
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
>> >doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
>> >W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same.
>>
>> Once more proving that Apache excels at virtual hosting while IIS does
>> not.
>Oh no, that does not logically follow. It may SUGGEST that apache is more
>commonly used for bulk hosting but not that apache is better.
Oh, I assure you it is much more commonly used than any other solution.
And if it were not better (mainly cost-effective and maintainable), why
would bulk hosting companies use it? They make their money from the
web site after all, unlike the likes of Exxon who just want a pretty
site for their special visitors...sort of the electronic equivalent of
a marble lobbby.
>Remember, when you wanna make money by hosting a few hundred/thousand
>tiny sites on a single box, you wanna also make that box as cheap as
>possible.
So, we're agreed that IIS is not a cost-effective solution for mass
virtual hosting.
Now, we can talk about "better". I mean, Ma and Pa Kettle are going to
be calling up to bitch when little Suzy can't upload her 'N Sync
pictures to the web site. So your service has to be not only cheap,
but also reliable. Otherwise you lose business and/or spend all of
your profit on people to answer the phone and fix the servers.
>A T1, BSD and Apache and you are an "ISP" - gosh golly - and all 300
>"hosts" count on Netcraft - yipee - those apache numbers sure do
>impress now! yipee!!
Yes, much more impressive than the hugely important high-traffic
money-making site of...Union Carbide. Who could probably put up a few
static pages running off an old clapped-out 486 and nobody would know
the difference.
>> >The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making
>> >ones?
>>
>> You mean the high-profile ones that MS helps set up for the publicity
>> value?
>
>I love it, as soon as someone shows a company running MS products the
>automatic assumption of the linux appologist is that MS probably paid them
>to take their products for free and then paid magazine writers to use
Why not? They "invested" millions in AT&T to get them to use that POS
pseudo real-time OS they used to call WinCE for cable boxes. They
routinely give away software to ISP's in a not-very-successful effort
to get them to use their products. They put untold hours of "support"
into the NatWest bank fiasco. There's a history to point to, your
sarcasm notwithstanding.
As for these "high-profile" companies being able to buy anthing they
want, sure. That just means it doesn't need to be cost-effective or
easy to maintain or anything else. It just has to sound good on the
golf course.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:29:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Define "rare"
>
> once a week?
> once a month?
Read what I wrote.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:40:44 GMT
On 11 Jul 2000 14:11:00 GMT, Mark Wooding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You do realize that X exists almost entirely because of funding from
>> the vendors that released it in commercial forms, don't you?
Actually, X exists because it was a research project at MIT.
XFree86 primarily exists due to it's gratis-ware userbase.
Commercial and proprietary implementations are actually quite anemic.
This goes the same for OpenGL as well.
>
>Yes. And indeed I don't believe that the base X distribution should be
>copyleft. I'm just considering that maybe the XFree86 code should.
Depending on how you structure the thing, copyleft may or
may not be a burden on commercial development. The notion
that free software is necessarily a burden on commercial
development is just FUD spread by those with incompatible
motives.
Infact, it is the common and well established condition that
common facilities are not able to be 'assimilated' by any
random party and that has not slowed the industry down one
bit.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:41:20 -0500
Paul Colclough wrote:
>KDE/Gnome/or whatever window manager) and other programs you install. You don't
> see many Windows programs installing themselves into c:\windows\system now do
> you? They all install neatly into c:\program files\ and you can pretty much
> find an installed program living in there in some sub-directory.
Would this be why so many computers have about four copies of MS Office
on the hard drive? They started with Office 95 (installed to
c:\msoffice) went to office 97 (early version installed to c:\program
files\msoffice) then went to Office 2000 (installs to c:\program
files\Microsoft Office) and this is just for one set of programs made by
the actual OS vendor. Frankly I don't see Windows programs all
installing into the c:\program files directory. Many of them still make
thier own subdirectory off of the root of c:. For instance, Adobe
Acrobat (c:\adobe or c:\reader), Corel WordPerfect (last version I
installed on Windows was c:\corel\wordperfect), Lotus and others. I
know, in some cases you can tell it you want the program installed in
the proper directory, but by default this doesn't *always* happen.
In Linux, unless the package makes up a directory structure (which is
extremely rare, I've only seen it once) the binary will be in /bin,
/usr/bin, /usr/local/bin or some sub-directory of /opt (if the program
needs a full directory of other files to make it run, like Star
Office). This isn't set in stone of course, but for the most part it is
one of these places.
And BTW, when I install a Windows program it does install crap all over
the hard drive, not just into its pre-decided folder. I'm not saying by
default that there is anything wrong with that (have you heard of DLL
hell?), but it could be argued this is one of the stability issues with
Windows. I know it isn't the same in Linux. It works on a different
principle, but once you get used to the way it works, it isn't any
worse/better. It's just a different way to do it. Until some
government agency comes along and says "If you are a programmer you have
to install to (name your directory) and nowhere else on the system or we
will throw you in the slammer" I don't think we will ever end the "where
did it go?" question. Frankly, that's something I think I can live
with.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Tim LaDuca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:40:34 -0400
Jeff Hall wrote:
> TimL wrote:
>
> > Ok it's official(for me).
> > Windows 2000 is a piece of SHIT!
> > I have a linux box and a Windows 2000 box.
> > My Linux box has been up and running for 13 days. I run memory
> > hog Mozilla from time to time on both. On Linux I always get all my
> > memory back, moreover, I can always see where ALL my memory is
> > with GNOME System Monitor or if all else fails "PS -Al". Right now
> > my Win2000 box shows a MEM usage of 244 MB and I have NOTHING
> > open and task manager gives NO indication of where all that memory
> > is spent. From a multi-billion $$ corporation that gets $300 for each
> > (legit :-) ) copy of this shit this is ridiculous.
> > Incidentally our network director gave a presentation the other day.
> > He has chosen a mix of Windows and Unix servers(i.e. I don't know
> > his bias) but claims MS has said they reccommend NT 4.0 be rebooted
> > every 4.6 days(probably generous) and Windows2000 every 30 days.
> > Hey Windows2000 may have all the moola but it ain't got all the smarts.
> >
> > /TimL
>
> This is a feature. A lot of inferior operating systems (non-Microsoft)
> will reuse memory, and therefore results in memory fragmentation and
> generally old, stale, tired memory. Microsoft Windows 2000, however, has
> the new MUO (tm) api which allows an application to reserve fresh memory
> every time. With Memory-Used-Once, users can be guaranteed of
> high-availability and low Total Cost of Ownership.
Thanks for the info! I knew deep down in side that this whole memory thing
was really something desirable and something I want, I just need a little
help figuring it out! :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:47:11 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:36:15 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >> As I've stated myself on numerous occasions: if it's truely
>> >> portable "percieved market demand" is a piss poor excuse.
>> >
>> >If porting to MIPS costs a cent more than what porting to MIPS earns,
>> >it's a perfectly good excuse. Just keep it portable, and do the
>actual
>> >port whenever making a port actually will earn you money.
>>
>> The only way to keep it portable is to port it.
>
>More or less. You can keep it fairly portable by being careful
Also, having one codebase deployed on multiple platforms can
be very useful in QA. Bugs that show up in subsequent ports
tend to reflect problems in the original sourcecode base. I
have seen this occur firsthand in a multi-unix shop and
several game developers have claimed this to be the case for
various cross platform projects.
Besides, we're talking about Micro$oft here: they could bleed
money for years to little ill effect.
[deletia]
The excuse of "it costs too much" simply doesn't wash for
MonopolySoft. It works for Be, but is simply absurd for
the market's 800lb gorilla.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:35:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
> In article <8kcrd9$puu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > Hyman Rosen escribió:
> >> >>
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> >> >> > The LGPL does not have this problem. Nor the one
> >> >> > I mentioned. But it doesn't serve the political
> >> >> > agenda of the FSF - the point of the GPL really *is*
> >> >> > to control and usurp the works of others.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course this is a lie. The point of the GPL is to encourage
> >> >> the development of free software.
> >> >
> >> > That only makes sense if you accept a priori that what the GPL
> >> > calls free software actually is free software.
> >>
> >> Obviously. And as was argued here over, and over again, there
> >> is no reason not to accept that GPLed software is not free,
> >> albeit in a restricted fashion.
> >>
> >
> > "free in a restricted fashion" can be said about almost anything.
> > IE5 is free in a restricted fashion.
> IE5 is free in the "free of charge" meaning.
The conditions for redistribution of binaries of IE5 are less
restrictive than for emacs binaries. The sets of freedoms given
to IE5 licensors and emacs licensors are not stricts subsets either
way.
Technically, that means the "freeness" of both things can not be
ordered.
[snip a bit]
> >> > Thus, the purpose of the GPL is simply to promote the development
> >> > of GPLd software. That is obvious in that, for example, the GPL
> >> > discourages
> >> > development of BSD-licensed software just as strongly as
commercial
> >> > software.
> >> That's not true. The GPL doesn't allow you to license a derivative
> >> work under the BSDL.
> >
> > And that discourages development of BSDL software.
> It discourages the development of BSDL software based on existing
> GLPed software. If, in your judgement, that means the license
> cannot be called "free", then OK with me. Just don't present that
> as an evidence that everyone has to accept.
But the catch is, just what do you mean by "based on existing GPLed
software"?
According to some, it means "linked to GPL code", and the result of
it is (again, according to some) that your original code is now GPLed.
This opens a huge can of worms in many ways, since the linking may be
done by someone other than the copyright holder!
> > You are also not allowed to create, say, a BSDL program that uses a
> > GPL library, can you?
> Of course you can. When the CPL was created, there was no dynamic
> linking to speak of, and
and? ;-)
According to RMS dynamic and static linking are the same.
> >> It discourages derivative works that are not
> >> licensed under a compatible license.
> >
> > The only license compatible with the GPL are the ones that are
> >
> > a) Practically public domain (no-publicity BSD)
> > b) The GPL
> >
> > That doesn't leave much room.
> No, because the requirement to distribute source code is a very
> big hurdle for most companies interested in selling packaged
> software (software that has to earn its keep by selling in huge
> quantities). GPLed software is an excellent basis/component of
> custom systems. The general purpose improvements and bug fixes
> are returned to the community (so the core doesn't need to be
> modified when moving to a new release), and the custom bits can
> remain proprietary (no distribution requirement).
Unless those custom bits need to link to the GPL bits.
In fact, I have seen people serioualy state in debian-legal
that using something like stdin and stdout of a GPLed program makes
your own code GPL (Raul Miller, IIRC, on a thread about gcc frontends?).
If there could be a nicely defined border for what you can and can't do
with GPLed software, this would not happen. IMHO, it happens because
the GPL is a mess.
> >> It's the existence of GPLed code
> >> that might discourage people to write compatible software under
> >> another free license.
> >
> > Indeed, that is an aditional discouragement of free software
development
> > I had not thinked of.
> Obviously, if people feel very strongly that the GPL presents
> intolerable restrictions, they will be motivated to write a
> "truly free" alternative, not?
Usually people are not that militant, unless they get religious.
> >> > As long as you believe that's a worthy goal, there is no problem,
> >> > of course, just say it clearly and not obfuscate the goal by
using
> >> > words that have multiple meanings.
> >> That's a value judgement, and one should consider several points:
> >> - precious few words have only one meaning, and the usage of
> >> the word "free" by the FSF and in the GPL is not significantly
> >> outside the range of meanings available for the word "free".
> >
> > It is. Free in this day and age, applied to a thing, means with no
> > charge. Things can not be free in the freedom sense, because things
> > have no rights.
>
> That's a nonsensical argument used by people who want to avoid
> the issue.
If I wanted to avoid the issue, I wouldn't bother posting ;-)
> Obviously, freedom is the results of rights granted
> to individuals (or, in the loftier sense, rights that cannot be
> taken away by the collectivity). The freedom meant by the GPL is
> the right to obtain and modify the source code, and to distribute
> the modified program under certain conditions. It seems to me that,
> in the restricted frame of reference of software, is can honestly
> be called freedom. There is no absolute definition of freedom, and
> no language police that determines the correct usage, fortunately.
>
> >
> > You could say that you are free by using GPL'd software, or that
> > someone is free to use it, but the software itself is not "libre".
> The abbreviating "free software" is just as accurate as "free speech".
> The latter means "freedom to say, with certain restrictions, what
> you want". The former means "freedom to obtain, modify...etc".
> It's a perfectly acceptable (if not totally unambiguous) figure of
> speech.
There are significant problems with that usage.
For one thing, there is a difference between applying "free" to an
abstraction, or to a concrete thing.
"free speech" is applied to an abstraction. If I said "Mr. Doe will
give a free speech wednesday night", would you say I mean "free as in
free speech"? No, because it's applied to a concrete entity.
The GPL advocates apply free randomly to the abstraction of software,
and to concrete software products "here you have a CD of free
software". That is IMHO, ugly.
> >> - there is no reason to assume there was/is a desire to obfuscate
> >> any goals, as the GPL is quite clear about its intentions.
> >
> > The GPL is anything but clear, but that's just MHO.
> Obviously. I had no problem understanding it.
You must be very smart. Ok, quick, take the GPL, search for "and so
on". Now tell me, what parts of a linux distribution fit that?
What parts of Solaris fit that?
Can a binary be distributable for one OS and not for another because of
that?
Can software be free if its binaries can only be distributed for
certain operating systems?
As a golden star question: doesn't that violate the Debian Free
Software Guidelines?
> >> - The FSF and the GPL predate many other "free" licenses, and
> >> thus the onus is not on them to change or drop their use of
> >> the word "free" WRT to software (as rms was probably _the_
> >> first, or one of the very first, to define the word "free" as
> >> applicable to software).
> >
> > There's a funny scene in a movie with Ringo Starr, called 1000000BC,
> > in which cavemen discover fire.
> >
> > The leader gives it a name: "Urgh".
> > Then another character comes and says "fire!".
> > "No, urgh". "fire" "urgh". "Ok. urgh".
> >
> > I could have called cars planes, that doesn't make them fly.
> Granted, but if you were the first to name an object or concept,
> and a bunch of johnny-come-latelies demand that you change the
> name you coined because it doesn't fit their world view, I
> guess you would do as RMS does: see if their interpretation
> prevails in common usage.
I don't see RMS do that, really.
> >> Do you think KDE would have been more widely adopted if it'd
> >> been licensed under BSDL, or put in the public domain?
> >
> > Honestly? I don't think it would have made any difference at all.
> Thanks.
You're welcome :-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:44:05 GMT
In article <8kdfrc$rn0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > I don't think that will ever happen at all.
> >
> > What IS happening is that companies are forming QA teams to hammer
on
> > free software, and report wishes.
> >
> > Just look at the KDE bug database and look for "QA".
>
> Thats not it. One thing is QA and another is implementing new ideas
and
> listening to its users. I do not believe that top-down control does
it.. at
> least if you want to have succes
No software project is designed based on user decisions. Users simply
can't do that kind of things, because they are not qualified.
That's why UI designers get their fat checks ;-)
> > But veto? The day someone can veto software I write for free, is the
day
> > I open a nudie bar and declare computers anathema.
>
> Fine.. but its about project politics. Lets say the KDE team agreed
that
> such a user team should be created (it has allready for graphic
artists
> with vetos)
Actually no. The people that do the graphics decide about the graphics
and those who do the code decide about the code. There's no user group
deciding on graphics, much less with a veto.
> and that they should be as important as the devel teams. If
> your software didnt meet the standards then it wouldnt be included in
the
> project.
Says who? No free software project has that kind of pyramidal structure.
And if it existed, what would it be replaced with? Who would make me
code the alternative according to orders? That is just impossible on
free software.
> Simple and it would give you the oppurtunity og open a nudie bar
> ;-) (if its a good one with nice girls then count on me visiting it)
Well, we'll have to wait until I get pissed enough to leave forever ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:52:12 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:56:10 GMT, Paul E. Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>>My argument is that with a Linux (Unix) system, both as server and
>> workstations,
>>you can achieve very high uptimes, which means greater productivity. That is
>
>No, uptimes in and of themselves prove absolutely nothing.
Sure they do. They give you a good indication of the Mean Time to
an UNSCHEDULED service outtage. Crashes cause data loss and prevent
people from doing whatever it is that they do that is productive.
[deletia]
When I hear that VMS will likely only be down 2 hours in any 90
day period (likely less) I know that the likelihood of my
secretaries losing their work or being otherwise idle due to
system problems is minimal to non-exsitent.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:53:57 -0500
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > The truly sad part is that the client suffered and was most likely
> > > paying $200/hr for an incompetent programmer.
> > >
> > > It's amazing what goes on in Computer Rooms these days :(
> > >
> > > DP
> >
> > No, the truly sad part is that they fired the guy that did all of the
> > screw-ups, and he was the guy that got hired back (paid 4 times as much
> > as before, now as an outside consultant) to "clean" the code. The one
> > bright spot is that since he was an outside consultant he no longer had
> > to listen to the users whine about wanting new features (what got him in
> > trouble in the first place). Pretty scary huh?
>
> poetic justice for whiney lusers.
>
I'm more of the opinion that it was poetic justice for the idiot
management. Unfortunately, in the approximately 2 years since he had
been there previously, the entire management crew had been re-built from
the ground up (this happens at that company almost every year). There
were only two people that even worked in management at both times,
neither of which would say anything because they were both ass-kissing
yes-men. Oh yeah, did I mention that I also saw the entire management
team turn over again in the one year and two months that I worked
there? That place had way more problems than just a shitty hacked up
AS/400. That was just one symptom of the lousy management. And the
"parent" company.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
