Linux-Advocacy Digest #778, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Ad ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Anonymous)
Re: Uptimes ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Ad
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 02:50:31 GMT
Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Newspaper Ad
I checked into a job opportunity with Linuxgruven a few weeks
ago. I was not 'actively' seeking employment at the time. I did this
solely based upon a fellow employee(where I currently work) who said he
saw an ad in the newspaper that said $45K /yr, entry-level position,
training for qualified applicants. There was a little more to the ad,
but not much. It was a pretty small ad. I'm not quoting the ad because
I don't have it laying around anymore, but it may have said,
training 'available' for qualified applicants in the ad, instead of
just training for qualified applicants. Whatever. The fellow employee
that gave me the ad said that he called the 888 toll free number and
inquired about the job and was told me that it involved using Linux,
and since he didn't know anything about using it but knew that I liked
Linux he was giving me the ad in case I wanted to check it out.
I said Oh Yeah! I'll call! I was excited at the sound of the
opportunity. I would love nothing more than to get a job implementing,
working with and using Linux. So I called. The person on the other end
asked me a couple questions, and then gave me a number to call to set
up an appointment for an interview here in Denver. I called the number
and set up a time to come in. I then told my current employer that I
needed the first part of that day off to go to a dentist appointment
(guess you could say that's a little deception of my own). Then I went
about updating my resume.
The day of the interview arrived and I went to the address, a
very nice office building in DTC here in Denver. I went into the office
suite, which was also very nice. Secretaries were there at the front
desk answering the phone with, "Linuxgruven". A gentleman came in to
interview me. The interview lasted a while and went very well I
thought. He said a few times that you have to be Linux certified to get
the job, but it's fairly hard to find people because the 'talent pool'
of people with Linux skills is really shallow. Then he said
Linuxgruven 'subsidizes' the cost of the schooling and 'reimburses' you
after you have worked for them for a year. He said the reason you have
to be certified is to make sure you know how to do your job in the
field professionally, and even though I may currently have good Linux
skills they may not be up to a professional level. But, if I thought
that my skills were good enough to pass the tests that I could just go
ahead and take the tests, get the certification, thereby skipping the
month of school. I agreed that even though I have a few years of
experience of using Linux on my own, my skills probably weren't up to
the par of a professional level and I would feel more comfortable about
taking the tests if I went through the training/schooling first.
Therefore I would plan on going through the month of schooling before
taking the tests. I took what the interviewer said about subsidizing
the cost of schooling to mean that they paid for the schooling as long
as you work for them for a year, but if you leave before a year is up
then you owe them the cost of the schooling. My current employer has a
deal where they want to help you get certified(for these applications
called 'Loadrunner' and 'Winrunner' -> www.merc-int.com) by covering
the cost of certification. You sign a contract that says you won't
leave the company for three months after you receive the certification.
If you do, then you owe them the $500 for the cost of the
certification, and it would come out of your last check, I suppose. But
you get/earn the certification on your own time after work, and it
supposedly takes a few months and a total of 160 hours. But I know for
a fact with my current employer that nothing comes out of your own
pocket to actually get the certificate in your hand. I told the
interviewer that I had considered getting Linux certified before, but
it costs thousands of dollars. He did mention that the tests cost $400
(four of them $100 each). The interviewer never once mentioned that I
would need $2,500 for the schooling or the $400 to take the tests to
come out of my own pocket. He never even mentioned anything about
$2,500 at all. I didn't ask any real questions about the details of the
cost of schooling or taking the tests because he kept making it sound
like it would all be covered by Linuxgruven, as long I worked for them
for a year after getting certified.
I am in the position that I could quit my job in order to
totally devote my time to the month training/schooling, as long as the
cost of it was covered, and I knew that I was going to be making
$45k/year after the month was over. I then took the aptitude test that
Linuxgruven gives applicants/potential employees to take. I was told
that I would be called with the results of the aptitude test the
following day. This was on a Thursday, and the school was supposed to
start in about 10 ten days. I told the interviewer that I would need to
know that I can and am going to get signed up for this as quickly as
possible, so that I could give some notice to my current employer. I
even mentioned that if I gave notice tomorrow that it wouldn't be that
much of a notice because we were only working a three day week next week
(next week was Thanksgiving and my current employer was not only giving
us Thursday off, but Friday as well) and the school was supposed to
start the Monday following Thanksgiving weekend. Since the interviewer
told me that he would call me the next day, I was pretty disappointed
that I received no call. I was certain I did pretty darn good on the
aptitude test and that the interview went very well. I figured that
maybe he would call on Monday, and be kinda apologetic about it. Sure
enough! I came home on Monday during my lunch break and there was a
message from him saying he was sorry he didn't get back to me on last
Friday but that I did real good on the aptitude test and he wanted me
to call. So I called him back. He said he was wanted to go ahead and
get me signed up for the school and wondered if I had any questions. I
said I just wanted to know if there were any further requirements to
getting the job. He re-iterated that you have to be certified, and then
told me that you have to have $400 to take the tests and $2,500 for the
school. I said "what?" I could come up with $400 for the tests but I do
not have $2,500. He said, oh I was pretty certain I talked about you
having to pay for the certification when you were here. I said no, I'm
pretty certain you didn't and I thought Linuxgruven covered the cost of
it as long as you worked for them for a year. He said no, we reimburse
you the cost of the school and the tests after a year. I said "Oh, I
see". I then said, well, like I said, I don't have $2,500, but maybe I
could get a loan. You see, I was excited by the supposed fact that this
supposed job paid more than I have ever made, much more, and that it
was working with Linux. I was equally excited by both factors. And I
thought perhaps I had been a little confused on the
subsidizing/reimbursement deal, perhaps. If so though, I thought only
because the interviewer did not make it at all clear during the actual
interview and actually led you to believe that the school would be
covered(or subsidized) by linuxgruven for a year, let alone the ad in
the paper. I mean what could he have been thinking when I said, "that I
had considered getting Linux certified before, but it costs thousands
of dollars". That I had come to Linuxgruven because I suddenly had a
few thousand dollars in my pocket, or that I was already Linux
certified, of which the ad in neither the paper nor anyone I talked
with on the phone mentioned anything about? Through this whole thing he
never once tried to say that I should have know up front that this was
going to cost some money(be it $2,900 for the school and tests, or $400
to just take the tests route) or be Linux certified, in order to
receive the 'training for qualified applicants'. That's because the ad
doesn't say that up front. Is it just me, or shouldn't it have to say
that up front?
But, I was determined to do what it took to get the job, if I could,
even though I think I was beginning to realize how I had been deceived.
I already wasn't exactly happy that previously he hadn't called me back
the day he said he was going to about the results of the aptitude test.
Anyway, I told him that I would call about getting the money and get
back to him. I called my mom and told her what was happening and asked
for a loan. She seemed to think this might be a scam and had a number
of questions she wanted answered before she would be willing to put up
the money. Like what is the name of this school and how is it
accredited, what is the phone number of the school, ect. She said if
you can get him to fax me the info then ok. I called him back again and
asked him the questions and told him that I needed the answers faxed to
the given number. He said ok, but the school is so new that they just
finished painting the walls there and they did not have a phone in yet.
I said ok... well put that as the answer to that question, or, if you
can somehow find out what the phone number will be once it's installed
then put it on there(there were more questions than this that my mom
wanted answered on there that I'm not listing here, but you get the
idea I hope). He said ok, and that he send the fax that day. I said ok,
good, because I would sure like to give notice to my current employer
as soon as I can if I'm going to do this. Nothing came that day. When I
came home during my lunch hour the following day, there was a message
on my answering machine from the interviewer saying that he had lost
the fax number and needed me to give it to him again. I called and got
his voice mail and left him my mom's fax number again. I couldn't help
but wonder why he hadn't called yesterday to say he had lost the
number, since yesterday was the day he said he would send the fax. I
was now looking at giving my current employer hardly any notice at all.
The remainder of that day went by and the next day came and went with
still no fax from the interviewer. The next day was Thanksgiving. The
interviewer was very professional, and seemed knowledgeable during the
actual interview. But now, I considered the interviewers actions to be
tardy at the least, unprofessional may not be out of line to say, at
the most. The next day, Friday, my mom had to work while I had it off.
My mom still did not receive any fax. That evening around 8 PM, he
calls. He said he was calling to see if I was going to sign up for the
school or not. My mind has all kinds of stuff suddenly flash through
it. I said, well, here it is Friday and you want to know if I'm going
to go through it. Well, I told you that I wanted to be a little bit
professional in giving my current employer some notice(you'd think he's
gotta respect that somewhat) and my mom still hasn't received the fax
you said you would send. I'm not going to walk into work on Monday and
say goodbye, this is the last you'll be seeing of me and my services.
He replied, Oh? You didn't get the fax? Well I was calling on the
assumption that you had received the fax and was wondering why I hadn't
heard back from you. Well, I gave it to someone else to send. I
immediately said, Oh? So, you gave it to someone else huh? I see. He
said yeah, I'll have to have a talk with(struggles for the name for a
second then says) what's-her-name(that's what he ended up saying,
literally) on Monday. Then went on to say that he had called me because
there was one(I repeat, one) opening in the class left, and that me and
another person ,which he called an 'alternate', that he wanted to get
in touch with us before the deadline in case one of us were still
interested. I was a little more courteous for rest of the conversation,
and explained that I saw that I could order the self-study books for
the SAIR/GNU Linux certification(www.linuxcertification.com) therefore
I was considering getting the books, studying them on my own time when
I could, and then just take the tests. He asked me to do him a favor,
to e-mail him the results of my tests. I said OK(don't ask me why). The
conversation continued for a few more minutes. He ended it with, "Do
you have anymore questions?" I said, "No, have a Happy Thanksgiving
weekend."
Now I feel like I cannot trust employment ads I see in the paper. I
would like for someone at Linuxgruven explain to me why I did
not 'qualify' for the training as an applicant. As far as I know I was
a 'qualified applicant'. Why then can't I receive the available
training that is advertised in the paper? I feel I now have to ask
prospective employers if they require any certifications or training
that I am required to pay for out of my own pocket in order to get the
job, before I am willing to set up an appointment to go in for an
interview. If they mention anything like training or schooling is
available, then I will ask, "at what cost?" And even then, the employer
is going to need people badly enough, or want me enough, that they will
be willing to interview me outside of normal weekday business hours,
because I am not going to go to another job interview on the 'I have a
dentist appointment' ruse ever again. And by that I don't mean that I
will change it to 'I have a doctors appointment'. Is it ok to ask your
current employer for time off 'to go on a job interview'? I think not.
Well, to finally wrap this up, I would like to say there are a couple
of reasons I finally decided to sit down and write about my experience
with Linuxgruven and their ad in the paper. Because of a newsgroup
letter someone posted which I found by doing a search on discussions at
www.deja.com on the word Linuxgruven, and then a banner ad on the web
advertising "Linuxgruven" at one of my favorite places to read Linux
news, linuxtoday.com. There were several posts concerning Linuxgruven
at deja.com but the one mentioned above is my favorite and I would like
to include it below. It is from the newsgroup alt.os.linux. The person
talks about their experience when they actually went in with a check
for $2,500. While reading it, keep in mind that the interviewer told
me 'he had called me because there was one opening in the class left,
and that me and another person ,which he called an 'alternate', that he
wanted to get in touch with us before the deadline in case one of us
were still interested'.
Thanks for taking the time to read this letter,
Jimmy Richards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1647 S Oakland Ct
Aurora, CO 80012
(303)743-7983
linuxtoday.com Ad Link
http://netadsrv.iworld.com/event.ng/Type=click&ProfileID=1087&RunID=1176
4&AdID=7491&TagValues=194.222.313.572.579.619.915.961.1048&FamilyID=1&Gr
oupID=1&Redirect=http:%2F%2Fwww.linuxgruven.com
i took the cert. class on the 27 of nov.i didnt
give the teacher/recruiter the check untill that
day. Just before class started he pulled me
aside and told me that you need to pay tuition
for the class. I handed him the check for
2,500.
He then said "Do you have any questions or
concerns about this class.
I said, "Not myself, but my family thinks its a
scam. In a week and a half my family and I have
called around talked to people at VA linux, also
talked to people at the BBB in St. Louis."
He explained all the problems that i had trying
to get infomation on Linuxgruven. And
said, "most of the infomation that you found was
inacurate"
after a short 5-10 min. discussion he sent me
into class. this is where it gets interesting!!!
There was a guy in there that had never touched a
linux machine in his life. and the other girl
spent the hour looking out the window starring
off into space. yep thats right do your math. 2
other people in the room. and myself, but not
for long. about an hour into the class(there was
no instructor, he wouldnt start class till he got
his lunch.),anyways the same person who
interveiwed me and taught the class, pulled me
aside again and said that, he wants me to go back
to go home and do more reaserch cause it sounds
like i am still skeptical about the whole thing.
He then handed me back my check and sent me
packing. Now he and Linuxgruven are going to pay
for this. Because i am going to write numerous
posts to several websites. and tell everyone
about this fiasco. if anybody needs to get
intouch with me please feel free to instant
message me or email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:49:15 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 8 Dec 2000
>"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >Nobody else is using the term that way.
>>
>> I disagree. Regardless, it is the most accurate, consistent, and
>> practical way to use the term.
>>
>> >In fact, according to everyone else
>> >but you, you can disable TCP/IP in Linux simply by removing the IP from all
>> >cards (including loopback).
>>
>> That's because they don't understand what "disable TCP/IP" means in the
>> context of both your and their use of the term. Nor do you.
>
>Oh, that's right. You're omnipotent.
No, just smarter than you are.
>NOBODY else knows what they're
>talking about, not even other Linux advocates with years of experience.
The knee-jerk reaction as always, Erik. Linux advocates with years of
experience are hardly infallible, and might well be far less accurate
about how other people use terminology. As long as other Linux
advocates agree with their definition of "disable", nobody really cares.
Until they get into a discussion with the infamous Mr. Funkenbusch, and
he wants to try to make a point by restricting the argument to some
meaningless pretense he's set up.
>> No, the subject is that you have to reboot to remove or add the TCP/IP
>> protocol (later you redacted that to disabled the bindings, using the
>> fact that nobody was being very careful of the difference early in the
>> thread), when you shouldn't have to, since unlike Linux, TCP/IP isn't
>> built into the kernel. It steams you pretty bad that this shows Windows
>> in such a bad light, since there's no conceivable reason but bad design
>> that something that isn't built into the kernel requires rebooting to
>> function correctly, not on a modern competitive OS, anyway.
>
>No. I stated you had to reboot to remove TCP/IP either in Windows or Linux.
>Others in this thread started saying "Why remove it when you can merely
>disable it" and when I said you could disable it the same way under Windows,
>you made the claim that you couldn't.
Correct. You cannot disable it the same way under Windows. They are
similar in effect, however. In Unix, the assignment of an IP address
alone enables IP, while in Windows, you have to both bind the protocol
to the adapter, and assign an IP address. Simply removing the IP
address does not disable the protocol by removing the binding. It is
true that Microsoft won't let you do one without doing the other, but
this I lump in with the fact that you have to reboot to remove IP, which
is not a kernel service, to begin with. Bad design.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:49:28 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Swangoremovemee in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Dec 2000
>How come you are T.Max under some posts and Anonymous under other
>posts?
It is a server glitch.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 22:12:11 -0500
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4oBY5.14744$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Black Dragon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:30:03 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Chad C. Mulligan' said:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > : "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > : news:90thsf$ik4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > :
> > : > > > > > Moot point - there is still no Windows machine in the top
50.
> > : > > > > >
> > : > > > >
> > : > > > > In the top 50 of a majorly flawed data gathering process.
Moot
> > : > > > indeed.
> > : > > > >
> > : > > >
> > : > > > Prove that they got unreliable information from the top 50!
> > : > > >
> > : > >
> > : > > The onus is on you to prove the reliability of the figures you
> present
> > : > > as facts.
> > : >
> > : > I have. I made the claim that NETCRAFT STATED... I then posted what
> > : > netcraft stated! What I have claimed is true, The top 50 according
to
> > : > netcraft has NO MS OS's LISTED! YOU made the claim
> > : >
> > :
> > : You are right you did repeat (plagerize) what Netcraft said. Truth,
> > : unlikely. Show where I made any such claim.
> > :
> > :
> > : >
> > : > In the top 50 of a majorly flawed data gathering process. Moot
> > : > > > indeed.
> > : > > > >
> > : >
> > : >
> > : > And you need to prove it or you are nothing but a troll!
> > : >
> > :
> > : Tell us what method they used. Others have posted statements by
> Netcraft
> > : indicating that thier gathering process is imperfect, leading to
> imperfect
> > : data. Blind faith, yours, isn't proof of their accuracy, you use
their
> > : statements, selectively, to support your outrageous claims yet ignore
> other
> > : statements. Tell us what method or crawl back under your tiny little
> > : bridge.
> >
> >
> > Where can I find information on the Internet that *contradicts*
Netcraft's
> > numbers, that also explains how it was done?
> >
>
> Since it doesn't seem possible to garner that metric anonymously on the
> Internet that proof is not available, if someone would explain how
Netcraft
> conjures their figures an alternate study should be available.
One place to start is by looking at accepted header definitions
http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/RFC/2068/155.htm
Netcraft claims to derive uptime through info sent by a standard HEAD
request.
I've compared Netcrafts reported uptime with uptime reported by some of the
servers at uptimes.net where there is actually a script installed on the
server that sends uptime info to a database and netcraft isn't even close to
matching! In every case they err on the side of under reporting uptime. With
this I say...Count ALL the uptime!!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
