Linux-Advocacy Digest #874, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Mar 01 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Yet more XBox bogification... (Mig)
Re: Selling to the masses (Rex Ballard)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Chad Everett)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Peter Hayes)
Re: which distribution? (Chad Everett)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Scientist and Engineers Rail at PC Industry (Charles Lyttle)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Chad Everett)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Charles Lyttle)
Re: the truth about linux (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Selling to the masses (Rex Ballard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet more XBox bogification...
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:30:25 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Give me a fucking break.
>
> Anyone can produce lens flares, and they probably
> duplicated or reproduced whatever photoshop's lens
> flare algorithm is, or close to it.
>
> It's a non-issue really, it's its sad to see IGN
> reporting this as "news".
Let me help you...
Here is the original
http://xbox.com/games/amped/assets/amped-image-1.jpg
Here is the one with the Photoshop lensflare
http://www.mikekraus.de/lol.jpg
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Selling to the masses
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:39:13 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============A3E79B195D5B3CA66B617D42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I see we have another WinTroll posing as a member of the Linux marketing
department :-)
"." wrote:
>
> Andy Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The main thing holding back Linux from the masses is not the O.S. but
> > the sad socially inadequate people who critisise anyone or anything who have
> > problems learning how to use it.
>
> Thats right, you goddamned idiot, everyone who wants to switch from anything
> to linux reads this newsgroup before they do.
>
> Go away, you buttfucking turd.
>
> -----.
>
> --
> "ambition makes you look pretty ugly;
> kicking and squealing, gucci little piggy"
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============A3E79B195D5B3CA66B617D42
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============A3E79B195D5B3CA66B617D42==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:45:52 GMT
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:47:52 -0800, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>> >
>> > J Sloan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Dave Martel wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
>> > > >
>> > > > German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
>> > > > By: John Lettice
>> > > > Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
>> > > >
>> > > > The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
>> > > > plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
>> > > > according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
>> > > > Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
>> > > > the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
>> > > > access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
>> > > > read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
>> > > >
>> > > > "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
>> > > > computers used in sensitive areas..."
>> > >
>> > > This makes me quite proud of my German ancestry.
>> > >
>> > > j
>> > To all... no one is safe from NSA's equipment! Go ahead and encrypt
>> > ... you can't hide anything from those guys. They are a very scary
>> > organization!
>>
>> That's what THEY WANT you to think.
>>
>> The truth is less fearsome.
>
>I used to work for them. I know. They make their own chips for their
>own computer designs. Believe me, even if you shred a document they
>have ways to put it back together again. Their custom computers can
>decrypt any message that uses current encryption schemes and do it in 3
>seconds, where it would take a Pentium III several thousand years to
>do.
This is simply not true. It would take "geological" time to break
a decrypted message that uses a modern encryption algorithm..unless you
have the key or the encrypted message along with its plaintext.
The NSA is NOT the agency that they used to be. Technology is rapidly
surpassing them.
> But they also rely on more proven tactics to get information...
>spying, electronic eavesdropping or outright theft! If one is on their
>target list your screwed. Then if you think that your are secure in
>your office and think you are free to discuss in private they will hear
>you using their technology. Believe me, no one can hide from them once
>they are on your trail. Before they hired me I had to go thru a two
>week battery of psyhcological testing. They are very thourough. I saw
>one gal run out of these tests only after 2 hours crying. Its a very
>deep and probing test and its scary. Back in the 60's and early 70's it
>used to be called No Such Agency. Harry Truman started the agency back
>in the late 40's.
The rigor of their security clearance procedures has nothing whatsoever
to do with their ability to break modern encryption algorithms.
You probably think the movie "Enemy of the State" is a documentary and
believe everything you hear on Art Bell.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:46:03 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:47:15 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:992igb$c30$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >Well, they are claiming ther are backdoors without any real evidence.
> That
> > >means they're believing what they hear, rather than what they know to be
> > >fact.
> >
> > No. They are claiming there *may* be backdoors, and that this
> *possibility*
> > is a risk not worth taking in certain situations.
>
> And your own programmes might be putting back doors in themselves. Unless
> you do everything yourself, or have checked everything yourself thoroughly,
> there *may* be backdoors in almost anything, open source or not.
>
> > Simple question --- when you leave your house, do you lock the door? If
> so,
> > why do you do it? Do you have any evidence that between the time you leave
> and
> > the time you come back, someone will come by and try to get in and steal
> > your stuff?
>
> The difference is that I lock my door with commercial grade locks. I don't
> use a custom designed vault door.
So do you *know* that the locksmith hasn't kept his own copy of your keys,
or worse, given a copy to the police or sold it to someone he met in the
pub?
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux
Subject: Re: which distribution?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 21:49:45 GMT
On 18 Mar 2001 14:18:52 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher Fardell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Which is better Mandrake 7.2, Corel Linux original version or Redhat 6.2?
>
>RedHat 6.2 (although I'd use 7)
SuSE 7.1
>
>> Which supports the most hardware?
>
>Mandrake 7.2, although many don't like it (7.1 was better).
>
SuSE 7.1
>> which comes with the most software with it
>
>Depends on what kind of software you're talking about.
>
SuSE 7.1
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:13:19 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Well, they are claiming ther are backdoors without any real
evidence.
> > That
> > > > means they're believing what they hear, rather than what they know
to be
> > > > fact.
> > >
> > > How can one be sure with closed source software? One has to depend on
> > various
> > > news reports, because one can not inspect the source.
> >
> > You've never heard of a disassembler? It's not uncommon for people to
> > disassemble huge parts of OS's to prove such things. The license
agreement
> > isn't valid if it's used to cover up illegal behavior, so the
no-disassembly
> > clause would not be an issue.
>
> The Microsoft EULA specifically prohibits this.
However, the law specifically allows it, regardless of EULA in various
circumstances.
> So, you are suggesting that the only way to trust a Microsoft system
> is to violate your license agreement.
You can't violate it if you don't agree to it. For instance, you could
disassemble the code directly off the CD without ever installing it. In any
event, as I said, the no-dissasembly clause is invalid if it's used to hide
illegal activitiy.
> Thank you for that telling admission, dumbfuck.
Why do you always resort to profanity to back up your arguments, rather than
facts?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:17:15 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You've never heard of a disassembler? It's not uncommon for people to
> > disassemble huge parts of OS's to prove such things. The license
agreement
> > isn't valid if it's used to cover up illegal behavior, so the
no-disassembly
> > clause would not be an issue.
>
> So, your trying to tell me that the German Army should disassemble various
> American closed source software to validate that there are no back-doors?
No, I'm saying they should disassemble *ANY* software they use, regardless
of where it comes from, even their own programmers. That is, if they're
really THAT paranoid. If not, they have to put trust somewhere, and hope
they don't get screwed.
> Have you EVER disassembled anything in your life? Do you grasp how huge a
task
> that is?
For someone that does it for a living, not as huge as you might think.
There are also tools that help to recreate assembly into pseudo-highlevel
language.
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Scientist and Engineers Rail at PC Industry
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:23:59 GMT
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Charles Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > Thats the idea. But do you think it might be worthwhile to have a formal
> > survey done? You know, the way big budget movies do for their trailers?
> > I would suspect it would be best done without a Windows meachine
> > present. Just give the customers a token gift or payment for trying out
> > some tasks on various Linux machines. Gage how long it takes them to
> > open and edit a document, log onto a web site, do some ergonomic checks,
> > etc.
>
> The latest thing we were doing was an invite to create a dual-boot
> system for the users. They would bring in their computers and we would
> install the distro that they would like to try out. Most e-mailed back
> and wanted to know how to re-claim hard drive space for Linux use. As
> far as a formal survey, I have no experience or ideas as to go about
> that.
I don't know either. I think I'll make a preliminary contact with a
local marketing company and look around at UA. Perhaps a Bus. Admin.
student needs a senior project. A project like this needs three things :
some money, someone with the hardware and OS, and someone who knows what
they are doing in marketing. If your group has the hardware, I'll start
looking for someone who knows what they are doing and try to find out
how much money we need from a fund raiser.
My only experience in this is with the UAT project (see link below). I
have learned that no matter what we think is a good feature, customers
have other ideas. I'm working with some youth groups to do the UAT
project. Their mentors seem to think that money is not an especially big
problem. Non-profit groups have some good ways to raise reasonable
amounts and ways to work around having to spend much to begin with.
>Some of the users were hung up on the lack of games and removed
> linux. You can't make everybody happy I suppose. Maybe Sega will
> produce some linux games in the future, if they manage to hang on.
For mass marketing games are bigger than office apps. I think the Linux
community should be concerned about making it easy for users to play
their games for hours at a time, or run their applications in general.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:26:48 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What's there to gloat about? This means they won't use Linux either,
since
> > they claim they won't use *ANY* software developed in America, and much
of
> > Linux is developed in American by Americans.
> >
> > Sure, they could examine the source themselves, but it doesn't sound
like
> > they're making informed decisions based on actual evidence, so I doubt
they
> > would disect Linux to prove to themselves that there aren't back doors.
>
> Just curious: Why do you always go into Super Microsoft Defense Mode
> every time something silly like this happens? If the NSA registry key
> had nothing to do with the NSA, then Microsoft did a very poor job of
> communicating it to the public and misunderstandings like this are
> inevitable (if it is a misunderstanding).
I'm not in any kind of defense mode. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in
the logic.
First, it wasn't a registry key. If you knew anything about the issue,
you'd know that. So stop pretending you do know something about it while
parroting things you think you've heard elsewhere.
Second, MS did the only job they could do on the issue. They released their
official view, and paranoia mongers went flying off the wall with various
made up theories. There is little they could have done other than
publishing their source code, and even then the paranoid would have claimed
it was doctored code.
Whether it was good enough or not is irrelevant. Experts agree that there
is no need to put secret backdoors into the mechanism being used, there are
much easier and simpler ways to compromise security.
> Not only do you go into defense mode, but you must sneak in attacks on
> Linux. Why? What does code verification of software on Linux have to
> do with being unable to do the same under Windows? What is an
> "informed decision" in your mind? Using Microsoft software
> exclusivly?
Of course not. My argument is simply that if the german military is so
paranoid that they're not going to trust the largest producer of software in
the world, why should they trust companies much smaller, with a lot less to
lose if intentional back doors are discovered?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:26:09 GMT
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:13:19 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> So, you are suggesting that the only way to trust a Microsoft system
>> is to violate your license agreement.
>
>You can't violate it if you don't agree to it. For instance, you could
>disassemble the code directly off the CD without ever installing it. In any
>event, as I said, the no-dissasembly clause is invalid if it's used to hide
>illegal activitiy.
>
Bzzzt. Try again. With Microsoft products all say right there in plain
writing that opening the CD is an agreement to the license. It is
becoming very clear that you have never even read the license/s that you've
agreed to. I have some docs that I'd like you to sign..just fax me your
signature....
>> Thank you for that telling admission, dumbfuck.
>
>Why do you always resort to profanity to back up your arguments, rather than
>facts?
>
Oh give me a stinkin' break please. You are the very same fellow who when
faced with my examples of ACTUAL evidence of Microsoft backdoors...could only
respond with: "you are a fucking idiot"...talk about the pot calling the kettle
black. Sheesh.
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:39:51 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The real truth is that Germany is still pissed that MS included
> Diskeeper
> > > technology whos CEO is a scientologist.
> > Already forgotten the "NSAKEY" backdoor? That was the "backup" key that
> > MS put in the OS in case they (they being MS) "forgot" the primary key
> > and needed to update your software.
>
> That would be the backdoor that one of the top cryptologists in the world
> says he doesn't believe exists.
>
> Bruce Schneier, author of Applied Cryptography and considered a formemost
> expert in cryptogrophy chimed in on the entire NSAKEY incident saying that
> the paranoia mongers arguments simply didn't make sense.
>
> http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9909.html#NSAKeyinMicrosoftCryptoAPI
>
> "But it's not an NSA key so they can secretly inflict weak cryptography on
> the unsuspecting masses. There are just too many smarter things they can do
> to the unsuspecting masses."
Erick has tried to change the subject. Note that we are talking about
two different things : one is the existance of backdoors. The other is
the existance of NSA specific backdoors. Also note that Schneier doesn't
say that backdoors don't exist.
Schneier makes the point that the NSA doesn't need a key for its
specific backdoor. That doesn't mean that backdoors don't exist. The
NSAKEY did exist and it was a backdoor deliberately put in by MS.
Whether it had anything to do with No Such Agency or not is another
matter. According to MS, it was just a spare in case they forgot their
original key, according to NSA ""
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: the truth about linux
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:40:03 GMT
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:17:49 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Brett Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> Well, a reply taking into account the obnoxiousness of the original
|> author...
|>
|> >>>>> "Public" == Public <Anonymous Account> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|>
|> > Who needs who? Both Sun and IBM can run Internet routers; we do not
|> > need Linux for that. And all the applications we want are coming
|> > from non-open source people. So what do need the open source people
|> > for? What will they give us that we do not already have? Does the
|> > world really need Linux? Do we need the open source people? Should
|> > we support or encourage them? The sad fact is that the world does
|> > not need the open source people, nor their lousy applications.
|>
|> OK, so StarOffice is not Open Source (last time I checked). But
|> XFree86 is. Apache, WUFTPD, KDE, Gnome, TWM. Try sitting down at a
|> Unix machine and using some software which ISN'T Open Source. Go on!
|
|Oh good! I hope there's a big prize in this for me!
|
|Lessee, I use a Sun, running Solaris (not the open source version). I use
|CAD tools from Cadence and Synopsys (far from open source), and other
|vendors (again, not even close to open source). I use the Sun compiler (not
|open source). I use FrameMaker (not open source). I use lots of other
|applications that were developed in-house (none of them are open source).
|
|In short, with the exception of Perl (which we don't use much, don't use for
|any mission-critical software, and which I normally run on my PC anyway), I
|can't think of any open-source applications on my Sun.
Sendmail. Bind. (I'm sure you use DNS a lot.)
|Mail my prize to the Gnome folks. Or even better: use it to buy Aaron and
|Charlie each a copy of Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence
|People."
|
|-- Mike --
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:43:08 -0600
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:13:19 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> So, you are suggesting that the only way to trust a Microsoft system
> >> is to violate your license agreement.
> >
> >You can't violate it if you don't agree to it. For instance, you could
> >disassemble the code directly off the CD without ever installing it. In
any
> >event, as I said, the no-dissasembly clause is invalid if it's used to
hide
> >illegal activitiy.
>
> Bzzzt. Try again. With Microsoft products all say right there in plain
> writing that opening the CD is an agreement to the license. It is
> becoming very clear that you have never even read the license/s that
you've
> agreed to. I have some docs that I'd like you to sign..just fax me your
> signature....
Not anymore, that's why they have click-through licenses and you have to
agree when running the program.
In fact, many products come pre-installed and you don't even have to open
the disk. You just buy an OEM'd PC, boot off of a floppy, then run your
disassemblers.
> >> Thank you for that telling admission, dumbfuck.
> >
> >Why do you always resort to profanity to back up your arguments, rather
than
> >facts?
>
> Oh give me a stinkin' break please. You are the very same fellow who when
> faced with my examples of ACTUAL evidence of Microsoft backdoors...could
only
> respond with: "you are a fucking idiot"...talk about the pot calling the
kettle
> black. Sheesh.
I said no such thing, and while I have used profanity, it's only when
someone does something dishonest like modifying my comments and making it
appear i've said something I haven't.
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Selling to the masses
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:41:42 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============FD0ECC253FA4B33C2FCC3052
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Andy Walker wrote:
>
> The main thing holding back Linux from the masses is not the O.S. but
> the sad socially inadequate people who critisise anyone or anything who have
> problems learning how to use it.
There is some truth to this. Many Linux users are very frustrated with
the
resistance that comes from lack of information. There are many
executives and
IT managers who have never even bothered to install Linux, or even spend
time
in front of a properly configured Linux system, and yet they will choose
to spend
10 times the money for Microsoft instead of Linux.
One of the biggest problems is that there are still no Linux systems
available
at CompUSA or any other retail outlet. You can order a Thinkpad or Dell
Demension
or any number of other computers that have been certified to be Linux
compatible,
yet you can't go to the web site and order a system preinstalled with
Linux.
You can't order a dual-boot system, you can't order a system with
Win4Lin that
will run Linux and Windows concurrently on the same machine. You can't
even
order a CD custom configured by the manufacturer - for your computer.
I always find it a bit frustrating to see an IT manager, VP, or even a
CIO who
has never even bothered to have a real-world evaluation of Linux, and
procedes
to dismiss it "out of hand". I've seen IT departments spend over 1
million to
evaluate commercial products and refuse to even consider an evaluation
of Apache,
mod_perl, php, zope, or any of the other widely used Open Source
Linux-based tools.
What is truly astonishing is that there are IT executives, CTOs and
CIOs, who have
absolutely no hands-on experience with ANY flavor of UNIX who claim to
be qualified
to make corporate IT architecture and infrastructure decisions. It's
like saying
you understand MIS when you have absolutely no CICS, MVS, or VM/CMS
exposure.
> Perhaps it's a deep seated complex that causes these people to resent
> anyone else joining their exclusive little club, but the only ones they
> really hurt are themselves. Their behavior only puts off others and
> consequently software companies from supporting Linux.
Actually, it's a fundamental characteristic of human nature. When you
do the extra
work, make the extra effort, and provide an extraordinarily
cost-effective solution
that consistently exceeds expectations, and you are overruled by someone
who is more
interested it protecting his stock portfolio holdings in Microsoft than
he or she is
committed to the earnings report of his own corporation, you are
naturally upset.
It's like working 60 hours/week from the time you were 12 years old to
be one of
the top professionals in your industry only to have you ex-wife and her
boy-friend
collecting half your after-tax income after the Feds and States have
taken their 50%.
You work very hard for 20 years only to have the leeches and looters
suck away 80% for
drugs, sex, and sloth.
> The normal people amongst us try and help other people progress their
> knowledge of Linux but there are sadly far too many who just dedicate their
> lives to rudeness and attempt to put others off.
You have a point. Telling some overpaid 3-piece suit who thinks Access
should be
the enterprise database standard and collects more income from vendors
and stock
options then he will ever earn from honest labor that he's ignorant,
uninformed,
too lazy to even make the effort to gather the information to make an
informed
decision, and questioning his qualifications as an IT executive is not a
wise
career move.
Of course, the day eventually comes when his boss, the CEO, the CFO, or
another top
executive DOES do the proper research. They hear that Linux might save
them 20%,
discover they can save as much as 90%, and suddenly you have Windows
Gurus having
their heads handed to them on a platter. Some are even having their
finances
investigated and are at risk of criminal charges.
> Maybe it all stems from being bullied at school for being nerds or
> something....
This also might be a part of it. I remember one VP of IT whose
backgound included being
captain of the football team, president of his fraternity, and marginal
knowledge of
Microsoft Office. He suggested that we use Windows 3.11 as our web
server, that we used
Windows 3.51 to replace our mainframe, and that we use Windows 95 to
replace our UNIX
systems. In 20/20 hindsight these reccomendations seem absurd. But in
each case, he
managed to find some stupid sucker who would sign the reccomendation in
exchange for
a promotion, and would take the heat for the stupid decision. I've been
offered two
"Gallows Jobs", which I left within weeks of realizing the nature of the
job. They
love to get UNIX gurus who they can threaten into signing a Windows
reccomendation.
They get benifits from Microsoft, they pass the buck to the UNIX guru
(who did know better
and has probably left smoking guns all over the place, but his PC will
be erased 10
minutes after his last day.
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============FD0ECC253FA4B33C2FCC3052
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============FD0ECC253FA4B33C2FCC3052==
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
