Re: [SLUG] Wall-to-wall Windows
David Guest wrote: Really, someone should take the IT section of SMH to task over this sort of crap. --- Although the project is mostly completed, data structures will continue to be modified and the last vestiges of open source will be eradicated in coming months. --- That's beautiful reporting. Maybe we need to nominate Rob O'Neill for one of those sardonic annual awards. Trent -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Wall-to-wall Windows
No mention of hardware!?-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Wall-to-wall Windows
Not crap, just an unfortunate series of events. Here's my take on it: "Printing faults crash the Citrix servers". Yes they do crash if they have insufficient memory, Windows or otherwise. They also crash if they are the wrong version or have never been maintained. I've also had problems with a SAMBA system when a device driver was updated on a remote Windows NT server, and the wrong printer driver was used. This comes back to not having any centralised policies regarding Change management. "User account policies difficult to control". Yes, and they need to be centralised. This is applicable for any OS, and concerns policy, not technology. They had several Unix / Linux systems doing things, presumably because they were more cost effective than anything else on offer. Note also that this was a merger of three departments, so possibly a few people left in the merger. Again no documentation. "Data was spread across multiple system partitions". Again, policy, not technology. No policy means data will always spread to fill a space (like the gas equations). Email and virus complaints - nothing new here. If it's not managed or maintained of course Exchange will fall over. It's the last sentence which is really silly though: one suspects the writer got a guernsey from a certain quarter for that one. My predictions: They will eventually get the thing running, then they will run out of funding for the Windows sysadmins' wages, then the thing will fall over again and they will have to justify the cost of fixing it again. Or they will outsource the lot and wonder why the charges are so high. It's going to be fun when they fill up their disks again. - Jill. -Original Message- From: David Guest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 17 February 2005 4:31 PM To: GLUG; SLUG Subject: [SLUG] Wall-to-wall Windows Is operating system vilification permited under the NSW anti-vilification laws? http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/14/1108229893549.html Really, someone should take the IT section of SMH to task over this sort of crap. David -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- IMPORTANT NOTICES This email (including any documents referred to in, or attached, to this email) may contain information that is personal, confidential or the subject of copyright or other proprietary rights in favour of Aristocrat, its affiliates or third parties. This email is intended only for the named addressee. Any privacy, confidence, copyright or other proprietary rights in favour of Aristocrat, its affiliates or third parties, is not lost because this email was sent to you by mistake. If you received this email by mistake you should: (i) not copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise use it, or its contents, without the consent of Aristocrat or the owner of the relevant rights; (ii) let us know of the mistake by reply email or by telephone (+61 2 9413 6300); and (iii) delete it from your system and destroy all copies. Any personal information contained in this email must be handled in accordance with applicable privacy laws. Electronic and internet communications can be interfered with or affected by viruses and other defects. As a result, such communications may not be successfully received or, if received, may cause interference with the integrity of receiving, processing or related systems (including hardware, software and data or information on, or using, that hardware or software). Aristocrat gives no assurances in relation to these matters. If you have any doubts about the veracity or integrity of any electronic communication we appear to have sent you, please call +61 2 9413 6300 for clarification. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Wall-to-wall Windows
David Guest wrote: Is operating system vilification permited under the NSW anti-vilification laws? http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/14/1108229893549.html Really, someone should take the IT section of SMH to task over this sort of crap. Yep. Looks to me like the Linux-bashing is mainly to hide the obvious question -- what sort of IT strategy leads to that sort of huge mess in the first place? Or was there no IT strategy. You get the feeling that any reasonable clean-up of the mess would have resulted in a sane outcome, no matter if the mechanism was predominantly Windows, Linux or Solaris. Especially since replacing their Exchange e-mail server with a (presumably more sanely configured) Exchange e-mail server lead to greater reliability. I particularly liked the well-known problem with Windows printer drivers under Citrix being unstable being described as a Linux problem :-) Shows a complete lack of understanding of the problem. Ironically, running the open source CUPS printing system is one of the neatest ways out of that particular problem. Cheers, Glen -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Wall-to-wall Windows
> Is operating system vilification permited under the NSW anti-vilification > laws? http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/14/1108229893549.html > > Really, someone should take the IT section of SMH to task over this sort > of crap. Ah, c'mon, if someone said the same thing about Windows in an article, you wouldn't even blink. They had badly put together systems, now they don't. Could be the same thing either way, and could be reported the same way. :-) We don't get a lot of negative press these days. Even if we did, the only way to combat it is to make positive press. Ranting about the bad bits doesn't get us anywhere [1]. :-) - Jeff [1] Understanding them, and building positive messages to combat them *does* though. -- linux.conf.au 2005: April 18th-23rdhttp://linux.conf.au/ For a list of reasons why technology has failed to improve our lives, please press 3. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Wall-to-wall Windows
Jeff Waugh wrote: Ah, c'mon, Do you sell Positive Thinking tapes as a sideline or what? :) Trent -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Wall-to-wall Windows
Rowling, Jill wrote: "Printing faults crash the Citrix servers". Yes they do crash if they have insufficient memory, Windows or otherwise. They also crash if they are the wrong version or have never been maintained. This is a genuine problem. If you're running Citrix you've got multiple people using the same server. Even though Windows isn't multiuser it generally all works OK. Except when those Citrix clients have differing lists of printer drivers. Ripping in and out printer drivers will often lead to a crash (they are written by Taiwanese hardware manufacturers, are only meant to be installed once, etc). The answer is only to run one printer driver. This usaully means standardising on hardware (a problem when that printer range is superceeded and a problem if your department is the merger of three departments) or using only generic PostScript (and PS printers still cost more than non-PS printers). Or installing CUPS on Linux as the print spooler. All CUPS printers look like a PostScript printers to Windows. So all jobs use the one driver. So Citrix doesn't need to stuff about changing drivers when differing users print. But on the far side of the CUPS spooler you can have differing makes and models of printers. Of course, the best answer is to use a real multi-user operating system in the first place :-) Cheers, Glen -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Wall-to-wall Windows
David Guest wrote: Is operating system vilification permited under the NSW anti-vilification laws? http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/14/1108229893549.html Really, someone should take the IT section of SMH to task over this sort of crap. I do not consider this vilification of Open Systems or Unix/Linux. This is a classic case where the *3Ms* failed to mix successfully. The 3Ms being: 1. *Men* - IT staff are short in understanding, experience, comprehension, and training. This is evident by the blame being directed only at Machines. No mention of Men and Management. It will be interesting to know what qualifications and experiences do the IT staff have. 2. *Machines* - Computer Hardware, Solaris, Unix, Linux, and Apps Software totally relies on Men as to whether it will work as intended or fall short of objectives. We know Open Systems machines and software work but at this site it did not. 3. *Management* - Level of IT management skills available at this site is certainly low. Management structure and decision making processes, etc. will be curious items of interest. Just think about one of the problems: being unable to register a user quickly. It is a basic and rudimentary service in an installation. Management failure is what this appears to me. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Wall-to-wall Windows
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Waugh wrote: | | |> Is operating system vilification permited under the NSW |> anti-vilification laws? |> http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/14/1108229893549.html |> |> Really, someone should take the IT section of SMH to task over |> this sort of crap. | | | Ah, c'mon, if someone said the same thing about Windows in an | article, you wouldn't even blink. They had badly put together | systems, now they don't. Could be the same thing either way, and | could be reported the same way. :-) | | We don't get a lot of negative press these days. Even if we did, | the only way to combat it is to make positive press. Ranting about | the bad bits doesn't get us anywhere [1]. :-) | | - Jeff | | [1] Understanding them, and building positive messages to combat | them *does* though. I agree with you, Jeff, but the thrust of the article was three bogey systems were amalgamated into one and that worked better. Whether that one was linux, windows or other is immaterial. However to then infer that the problem was open source software is illogical. O'Neill rendered no proof that it was. It is sloppy journalism and that at least should be scolded as such. David -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCFGglrI5sriRgbZwRAh2fAJ0dRjAg21ugAonfLf7XG9ZvGSfOmACfY4qZ CEDrx+LLxIcvtTFzIRV01P4= =W7++ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
