I had to wrack my brain for my password since I haven't logged in in some time (since I never posted that much anyhow), but/.'s been one of my favorite sites since before you started offering accounts on it. Thanks for all the great times.
Gnome is a problem because it doesn't encourage desktop use of linux in the sense that users use applications that are written to work and play well together. Gnome does nothing to encourage that.
This is the reason why OSX (and even windows) is beating the crap out of linux on the desktop and why it always will.
The average Gnome user (according to/.'s own roblimo) patches together a bunch of applications that are pretty much desktop agnostic. The other two cases are the "optimizer" that worries about the terminal program they're using taking up another half kilobyte of memory when they recompile their kernel, or a developer that doesn't care about the desktop because all they really do is development. All of these type of users would be just as well using Windowmaker or FVWM or any other window manager that we used to fight over last decade.
KDE has its issues, but at the very least it attempts to encourage users to utilize the K* applications and those K* applications actually work together very well. Further, the environment is a fairly consistent development target for applications.
At the moment, KDE is really the only coherent desktop environment that the free unix world has (with a possible nod to Xfce). Enlightenment development stalls out on a regular basis and as it stands now is years behind even Gnome for the most basic stuff. GNUstep was a great idea, but its in the same boat as E, too little, too late.
Finally, let's remember why Gnome was initially developed -- as a political response to some issues with QT that no longer exist -- and more often than not Gnome is still chosen over KDE in distros due to politics.
The linux booting on the iPhone part was kinda cool, but this is like the second time someone threw slashdot's traffic at a poorly written, poorly thought out blog entry. I wish I had the minute back that it took to read this garbage.
I've heard this reason (lack of a low-end mini tower) several times and I still don't understand the reason for it, other than the geek factor.
There are a bunch of external USB and firewire hard drive products out there that would require a significantly less amount of work to plug into a mac mini or imac.
That isn't necessarily true, Venus' orbit is within what scientists consider the "habitable zone" for our sun. Venus' "problems" started with either its lack of, or loss of, its solid core which prevents the formation of the planet's magnetic field (necessary to protect its atmosphere from the solar wind and radiation). Although not likely the only problem, this was one of several factors that combined to cause the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. There is still a valuable lesson for people to from there.
That definitely would've been fairly relevant information to include in your first post (assuming this is the same poster) in order to avoid looking like a PHB. She should've spoken up and its generally unthinkable that foreign nationals don't understand the immigration process, but there are still a lot of people that believe you're an american citizen if you're married to one.
So, you disqualified the chinese lady because she wasn't interested in the job before you even told her what it entailed? Heaven forbid people show interest in actual, specific job duties...what was she thinking? I know every place I've interviewed kept my job responsibilites and clients secret from me until I committed to working for them. She _must_ have been a spy.
I'm pretty much just the opposite of where you're at. I generally prefer to use packages for a workstation and src on servers. The reason being that workstations generally have a vast amount of software installed with the accompanying dependency hell. Servers, on the other hand, usually only need one or two applications installed and its easy and preferable to maintain that by hand.
However, this goal is difficult at best to undertake with most linux distributions, since everything is maintained through packages and the whole concept of third party software is very blurry. In the BSD world, that line is strongly delineated, so maintaining BSD servers with src installations tends to be much easier.
Ok, first you make the claim in this thread that the reason MS moved to 2k was that it was 'faster and more efficient'. Now you're admitting to the fact that moving hotmail to 2k was an MS agenda all along, efficiency and speed be damned. MS didn't care if 2k was more efficient, this paper shows that MS knew it. I don't see in the MS article you reference where it even states how many servers they started out with much less how many they ended up with. In any event, I haven't fed a troll in some time so you can at least congratulate yourself on that.
I was trying to imply the second. However, from past MS behavior, that would mean that both of those implications would be wrong. I do remember there being some amount of celebration when MS supposedly removed their last BSD server, which turned out to be premature, so this isn't terribly surprising.
I wonder about that myself. The hotmail migration was a marketing field day for microsoft. Contrary to what Drestin believes, there _were_ multiple failed attempts and MS tried to hide the fact they were still running freeBSD up until about a year or so ago. In any event, I knew a couple of people that were involved in the migration, and if a 2k server was 'more efficient' there would at least be a 1:1 implementation of 2k to freeBSD. However, there was usually multiple 2k machines that tried to replace one freeBSD machine and that doesn't sound like a model of efficiency to me.
Does hotmail actually make money for MS? I mean, enough to cover their fairly enormous migration effort while still showing a profit? I don't think it does, and in that sense it makes me believe that hotmail was purchased as a marketing opportunity. As a way for MS's marketing people to sell large scale enterprises on 2k. Why else would MS want to run a free email service? Aren't they a software company?
Its probably not just you. Astroturfing is fairly common on slashdot, just look at any post that mentions anything about debian. Some of the gentoo converts are ex-debian people, so its fairly natural to see them turfing every chance they get.
Actually, LFS is quite a bit different than a typical journalling filesystem. The 'Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System' has a section on LFS, you may want to check that out.
Well, I'm from a very similar background as you are. I have a history degree (with minors in CS and chemistry) and have worked as an admin for the past ~6 years. Here's what I've managed to learn and what I've done:
Take a shot at adminning for a small ISP, they usually can't afford to pay an admin. Be prepared to get paid squat, but you should at the least have very flexible hours.
Review your job situation very frequently and objectively. Don't get caught deadending or in a rut.
Don't be afraid to change up jobs after a year. Its hard to do, but it seems like unless the company you work for allows you to advance within, you can only advance by getting out of there.
A CS degree or EE degree does NOT an admin make. I think out of the group I work with only one has that degree (Actually he has both). The rest of us have our degrees across the spectrum.
Apply for some of the jobs that you see in the papers/web. Chances are the ads are asking for the moon while hoping they'll get someone with a telescope.
Just because a company is asking for a CS or EE degree shouldn't scare you off. Alot of times they want someone with any degree. It has to do with the stupid traditions that companies have, but it also shows you can stick something out for 4+ years.
Honestly, if you have some decent programming skills you should at the least be able to get a job as a programmer. If you find one at a small firm, you'll be the programmer and the admin so your dilemma is solved. Good luck.
Great pb, this is almost exactly what I was thinking. Sometimes I wish I could have some of the drugs that the people that write these "What Linux Must Do To Survive" articles take. My main irritations with this article are
1) This article was supposedly written by someone that gets paid to write. Her writing style is harder to read than some of those HOWTOs she was complaining about. I guess that's more proof that engineers and programmers can't write coherently 0-).
2) Instead of a Journalists FAQ for writing about Linux, we should write a "What Linux Must Do To Survive" HOWTO. If we did that at least there would be a reason all these articles recycle the exact same points.
3) The end of the "What Linux Must Do To Survive" HOWTO should point out that eight and a half billion of these articles have been printed since Linux was first released. Yet despite all the prognostications in these articles to the contrary, Linux keeps gaining ground.
4) Finally, the "What Linux Must Do To Survive" HOWTO should contain a list of other topics that harried journalists can write about when they and their bosses are looking for filler and a deadline is approaching.
I sincerely doubt that we disagree to the point that there isn't common ground between us.
As far as the WSJ, no I haven't read anything regarding these claims there. But why would they publish them? There were very few papers that dared go against the grain and predict bad things from the '96 telco act. Seeing as how the WSJ is generally targeted to the people that will benefit most from the current state of affairs, I doubt we'll see it either. Maybe there has been or will be some mild criticism, but not much.
"Responsible Journalism" is a nice catch phrase, but doesn't really apply here. The balance you're looking for is coming from the other sources that aren't running stories like this. If you believe half of what you hear, are those stories enough to distress you? Why aren't you charging the WSJ with disregarding "Responsible Journalism" and being the lapdogs of the RBOCs?
This sums up my views:
We aren't seeing change in competition, because the RBOCs are not being held to the conditions they agreed to. While it is true that the '96 telco act would best be used as toilet paper, why aren't its basic points being enforced? Why are the CLECs blamed for the fact that the ILECs ostensibly broke the law? That's the main failure of the telco act - the fact that no company is being held responsible to its part of that act. Can you see why blaming the CLECs is kinda backasswards in this regard?
What's our common ground you ask? Well, being as I work at a small ISP I know what its like to hear an RBOC "promise" something. I saw predictions of these same things when the telco act was first passed. I generally agree that most CLEC ventures are doomed due to the unchecked monopoly power of the ILECs. Two different conclusions to the same outcome, maybe a bit cynical, but hey...I deal with these guys for most of my day.
I know that the states have considerable power to wield against the RBOCs, but get real, the RBOCs pay a lot of money in campaign contributions. Don't think for a second that's forgotten when a politician is in office.
Why is it so hard for you to believe ratepayers bought these facilities? Did the RBOCs set up the facilities out of the kindness of their hearts? Were they under competitive pressure to make the prices fair for their customers? Were the RBOCs contributing campaign funding to the very people that were supposed to be the advocate for the consumer against them?
Did you read the links I provided? Its some really eye-opening reading. As a condition of deregulation, the RBOCs promised fiber to residential customers. The RBOCs also promised competition in local and long distance markets. Well, five years later, the fiber isn't here and the competition ain't comin'. Why not? Did the RBOCs spend too much money on mergers and acquisitions? Or did they spend too much money on legal counsel to fight against these requirements?
Sure, the CLECs aren't immune to making bad decisions, but they also shouldn't be held responsible for the RBOCs renegging on their part of the deal.
Now if that is still too hard for you to accept, think about this. Its been 5 years since the deregulation act. What has changed? Are we seeing a new era of competition with lower rates, new and innovative data services, competition for our local, long distance, and wireless services? Or are we instead witnessing mergers between the RBOCs in an effort to consolidate their control over the "last mile" and shut out CLECs?
True, these prices are regulated, but I think you're selling the power that the ILECs and the RBOCs hold short. They can buy and sell politicians in any state they want. They have that much money. If you don't believe me, there's a few websites you should check out :
Its far too simplistic to blame the CLECs, since the only thing that the old Bell companies have done since the deregulation act of '96 is consolidate in the hopes to buy back their old monopolies.
Also, for clarification, the RBOCs didn't buy those facilities. We, the customer and CAPTIVE ratepayers bought those facilities lock, stock and barrel. The RBOCs haven't spent dime one on those facilities for ages. Did we have a CHOICE when we bought our phone lines or T1s? No, we didn't. If you ask me, I think it'd be damn funny to make the ILECs and the RBOCs pay for those facilities now.
This story closely mirrored something that happened to me some time ago. (Set the way back machine for 1997ish). About that time I was working for a small ISP that had a leased line through a company that has now gone out of business (AGIS, its not bad form to mention them now:P~). In any event, around this time, Sanford Wallace obtained connectivity through AGIS and that's where the trouble began. What did Mr. Wallace have to do with the little ISP I was working at? I asked myself that question a whole bunch of times that summer.
In any event, Mr. Wallace got his contract through AGIS _BEFORE_ they had a formal anti-spam policy. It was an oversight on their part and for all their real faults, this one was unintentional (spam was only a massive problem at the time, not the endemic it is now.) After the news became common knowledge, every single mailbox that we had listed on our site was getting massive amounts of bulk mail. The irony is, it was bulk mail from the people that were telling us how bad bulk mail was. Each of these bulk mails had something in common, they would :
1) Include about 350 lines of contact email addresses from known AGIS customers
2) Inform us we sucked ass because we supported AGIS who supported Sanford Wallace.
3) Tell us to tell AGIS to stop supporting Sanford Wallace.
4) Tell us we sucked ass because we were, in effect, spammers
5) Tell us to leave AGIS
The irony from this never left me, which is probably why I don't use the RBL where I'm at now. These net cops were just as bad as the problem they were constantly whining to us about. It didn't matter that we weren't spamming anyone. It didn't matter that we had an AUP that forbid spam. We had to leave AGIS or we were going to be blacklisted. Never mind the fact that as a small company we couldn't afford to get out of our contract. Our mailboxes were flooded close to three months with this junk until AGIS finally created a chump 'bulk email commission'. In any event, just complaining to the company responsible would have yielded the same results, somewhat faster, than complaining to us.
Why do I bother mentioning this? Well, AGIS would have yanked Mr. Wallace's connection in a second if they _could_. But, because their AUP didn't expressly forbid what he was doing at the time they couldn't do it without losing a shitload of money. But, that wasn't a good reason according to the zealots. These people seem to want everything done yesterday and in reality that can't happen in a world of contracts. AGIS couldn't get rid of Mr. Wallace until they reworked their contract with him, so that was what that chump 'bulk email commission' was about. They formed that to wait out his contract and then didn't renew it with him. I know AboveNet has an AUP forbidding spam, but I wonder if they had a customer that was doing something that no one liked but who's actions weren't contrary to their AUP if AboveNet would break their contract with their customer? That would be a really interesting question to pose to their manglement.
Slashdot Mirror
I had to wrack my brain for my password since I haven't logged in in some time (since I never posted that much anyhow), but /.'s been one of my favorite sites since before you started offering accounts on it. Thanks for all the great times.
Gnome is a problem because it doesn't encourage desktop use of linux in the sense that users use applications that are written to work and play well together. Gnome does nothing to encourage that.
This is the reason why OSX (and even windows) is beating the crap out of linux on the desktop and why it always will.
The average Gnome user (according to /.'s own roblimo) patches together a bunch of applications that are pretty much desktop agnostic.
The other two cases are the "optimizer" that worries about the terminal program they're using taking up another half kilobyte of memory when they recompile their kernel, or a developer that doesn't care about the desktop because all they really do is development.
All of these type of users would be just as well using Windowmaker or FVWM or any other window manager that we used to fight over last decade.
KDE has its issues, but at the very least it attempts to encourage users to utilize the K* applications and those K* applications actually work together very well. Further, the environment is a fairly consistent development target for applications.
At the moment, KDE is really the only coherent desktop environment that the free unix world has (with a possible nod to Xfce). Enlightenment development stalls out on a regular basis and as it stands now is years behind even Gnome for the most basic stuff. GNUstep was a great idea, but its in the same boat as E, too little, too late.
Finally, let's remember why Gnome was initially developed -- as a political response to some issues with QT that no longer exist -- and more often than not Gnome is still chosen over KDE in distros due to politics.
The linux booting on the iPhone part was kinda cool, but this is like the second time someone threw slashdot's traffic at a poorly written, poorly thought out blog entry. I wish I had the minute back that it took to read this garbage.
I've heard this reason (lack of a low-end mini tower) several times and I still don't understand the reason for it, other than the geek factor.
There are a bunch of external USB and firewire hard drive products out there that would require a significantly less amount of work to plug into a mac mini or imac.
That isn't necessarily true, Venus' orbit is within what scientists consider the "habitable zone" for our sun. Venus' "problems" started with either its lack of, or loss of, its solid core which prevents the formation of the planet's magnetic field (necessary to protect its atmosphere from the solar wind and radiation). Although not likely the only problem, this was one of several factors that combined to cause the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. There is still a valuable lesson for people to from there.
That definitely would've been fairly relevant information to include in your first post (assuming this is the same poster) in order to avoid looking like a PHB. She should've spoken up and its generally unthinkable that foreign nationals don't understand the immigration process, but there are still a lot of people that believe you're an american citizen if you're married to one.
So, you disqualified the chinese lady because she wasn't interested in the job before you even told her what it entailed? Heaven forbid people show interest in actual, specific job duties...what was she thinking? I know every place I've interviewed kept my job responsibilites and clients secret from me until I committed to working for them. She _must_ have been a spy.
However, this goal is difficult at best to undertake with most linux distributions, since everything is maintained through packages and the whole concept of third party software is very blurry. In the BSD world, that line is strongly delineated, so maintaining BSD servers with src installations tends to be much easier.
Ok, first you make the claim in this thread that the reason MS moved to 2k was that it was 'faster and more efficient'. Now you're admitting to the fact that moving hotmail to 2k was an MS agenda all along, efficiency and speed be damned. MS didn't care if 2k was more efficient, this paper shows that MS knew it. I don't see in the MS article you reference where it even states how many servers they started out with much less how many they ended up with. In any event, I haven't fed a troll in some time so you can at least congratulate yourself on that.
I was trying to imply the second. However, from past MS behavior, that would mean that both of those implications would be wrong. I do remember there being some amount of celebration when MS supposedly removed their last BSD server, which turned out to be premature, so this isn't terribly surprising.
I wonder about that myself. The hotmail migration was a marketing field day for microsoft. Contrary to what Drestin believes, there _were_ multiple failed attempts and MS tried to hide the fact they were still running freeBSD up until about a year or so ago. In any event, I knew a couple of people that were involved in the migration, and if a 2k server was 'more efficient' there would at least be a 1:1 implementation of 2k to freeBSD. However, there was usually multiple 2k machines that tried to replace one freeBSD machine and that doesn't sound like a model of efficiency to me.
Does hotmail actually make money for MS? I mean, enough to cover their fairly enormous migration effort while still showing a profit? I don't think it does, and in that sense it makes me believe that hotmail was purchased as a marketing opportunity. As a way for MS's marketing people to sell large scale enterprises on 2k. Why else would MS want to run a free email service? Aren't they a software company?
Its probably not just you. Astroturfing is fairly common on slashdot, just look at any post that mentions anything about debian. Some of the gentoo converts are ex-debian people, so its fairly natural to see them turfing every chance they get.
Actually, LFS is quite a bit different than a typical journalling filesystem. The 'Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System' has a section on LFS, you may want to check that out.
Take a shot at adminning for a small ISP, they usually can't afford to pay an admin. Be prepared to get paid squat, but you should at the least have very flexible hours.
Review your job situation very frequently and objectively. Don't get caught deadending or in a rut.
Don't be afraid to change up jobs after a year. Its hard to do, but it seems like unless the company you work for allows you to advance within, you can only advance by getting out of there.
A CS degree or EE degree does NOT an admin make. I think out of the group I work with only one has that degree (Actually he has both). The rest of us have our degrees across the spectrum.
Apply for some of the jobs that you see in the papers/web. Chances are the ads are asking for the moon while hoping they'll get someone with a telescope.
Just because a company is asking for a CS or EE degree shouldn't scare you off. Alot of times they want someone with any degree. It has to do with the stupid traditions that companies have, but it also shows you can stick something out for 4+ years.
Honestly, if you have some decent programming skills you should at the least be able to get a job as a programmer. If you find one at a small firm, you'll be the programmer and the admin so your dilemma is solved. Good luck.
1) This article was supposedly written by someone that gets paid to write. Her writing style is harder to read than some of those HOWTOs she was complaining about. I guess that's more proof that engineers and programmers can't write coherently 0-).
2) Instead of a Journalists FAQ for writing about Linux, we should write a "What Linux Must Do To Survive" HOWTO. If we did that at least there would be a reason all these articles recycle the exact same points.
3) The end of the "What Linux Must Do To Survive" HOWTO should point out that eight and a half billion of these articles have been printed since Linux was first released. Yet despite all the prognostications in these articles to the contrary, Linux keeps gaining ground.
4) Finally, the "What Linux Must Do To Survive" HOWTO should contain a list of other topics that harried journalists can write about when they and their bosses are looking for filler and a deadline is approaching.
It's really a shame that you think that way. Do you own stock in one of the ILECs? You're really defending them tooth and nail.
As far as the WSJ, no I haven't read anything regarding these claims there. But why would they publish them? There were very few papers that dared go against the grain and predict bad things from the '96 telco act. Seeing as how the WSJ is generally targeted to the people that will benefit most from the current state of affairs, I doubt we'll see it either. Maybe there has been or will be some mild criticism, but not much.
"Responsible Journalism" is a nice catch phrase, but doesn't really apply here. The balance you're looking for is coming from the other sources that aren't running stories like this. If you believe half of what you hear, are those stories enough to distress you? Why aren't you charging the WSJ with disregarding "Responsible Journalism" and being the lapdogs of the RBOCs?
This sums up my views :
We aren't seeing change in competition, because the RBOCs are not being held to the conditions they agreed to. While it is true that the '96 telco act would best be used as toilet paper, why aren't its basic points being enforced? Why are the CLECs blamed for the fact that the ILECs ostensibly broke the law? That's the main failure of the telco act - the fact that no company is being held responsible to its part of that act. Can you see why blaming the CLECs is kinda backasswards in this regard?
What's our common ground you ask? Well, being as I work at a small ISP I know what its like to hear an RBOC "promise" something. I saw predictions of these same things when the telco act was first passed. I generally agree that most CLEC ventures are doomed due to the unchecked monopoly power of the ILECs. Two different conclusions to the same outcome, maybe a bit cynical, but hey...I deal with these guys for most of my day.
Why is it so hard for you to believe ratepayers bought these facilities? Did the RBOCs set up the facilities out of the kindness of their hearts? Were they under competitive pressure to make the prices fair for their customers? Were the RBOCs contributing campaign funding to the very people that were supposed to be the advocate for the consumer against them?
Did you read the links I provided? Its some really eye-opening reading. As a condition of deregulation, the RBOCs promised fiber to residential customers. The RBOCs also promised competition in local and long distance markets. Well, five years later, the fiber isn't here and the competition ain't comin'. Why not? Did the RBOCs spend too much money on mergers and acquisitions? Or did they spend too much money on legal counsel to fight against these requirements?
Sure, the CLECs aren't immune to making bad decisions, but they also shouldn't be held responsible for the RBOCs renegging on their part of the deal.
Now if that is still too hard for you to accept, think about this. Its been 5 years since the deregulation act. What has changed? Are we seeing a new era of competition with lower rates, new and innovative data services, competition for our local, long distance, and wireless services? Or are we instead witnessing mergers between the RBOCs in an effort to consolidate their control over the "last mile" and shut out CLECs?
How the Bells stole America's Digital Future
and
The Bell's Broadband Failures
Its far too simplistic to blame the CLECs, since the only thing that the old Bell companies have done since the deregulation act of '96 is consolidate in the hopes to buy back their old monopolies.
Also, for clarification, the RBOCs didn't buy those facilities. We, the customer and CAPTIVE ratepayers bought those facilities lock, stock and barrel. The RBOCs haven't spent dime one on those facilities for ages. Did we have a CHOICE when we bought our phone lines or T1s? No, we didn't. If you ask me, I think it'd be damn funny to make the ILECs and the RBOCs pay for those facilities now.
In any event, Mr. Wallace got his contract through AGIS _BEFORE_ they had a formal anti-spam policy. It was an oversight on their part and for all their real faults, this one was unintentional (spam was only a massive problem at the time, not the endemic it is now.) After the news became common knowledge, every single mailbox that we had listed on our site was getting massive amounts of bulk mail. The irony is, it was bulk mail from the people that were telling us how bad bulk mail was. Each of these bulk mails had something in common, they would :
1) Include about 350 lines of contact email addresses from known AGIS customers
2) Inform us we sucked ass because we supported AGIS who supported Sanford Wallace.
3) Tell us to tell AGIS to stop supporting Sanford Wallace.
4) Tell us we sucked ass because we were, in effect, spammers
5) Tell us to leave AGIS
The irony from this never left me, which is probably why I don't use the RBL where I'm at now. These net cops were just as bad as the problem they were constantly whining to us about. It didn't matter that we weren't spamming anyone. It didn't matter that we had an AUP that forbid spam. We had to leave AGIS or we were going to be blacklisted. Never mind the fact that as a small company we couldn't afford to get out of our contract. Our mailboxes were flooded close to three months with this junk until AGIS finally created a chump 'bulk email commission'. In any event, just complaining to the company responsible would have yielded the same results, somewhat faster, than complaining to us.
Why do I bother mentioning this? Well, AGIS would have yanked Mr. Wallace's connection in a second if they _could_. But, because their AUP didn't expressly forbid what he was doing at the time they couldn't do it without losing a shitload of money. But, that wasn't a good reason according to the zealots. These people seem to want everything done yesterday and in reality that can't happen in a world of contracts. AGIS couldn't get rid of Mr. Wallace until they reworked their contract with him, so that was what that chump 'bulk email commission' was about. They formed that to wait out his contract and then didn't renew it with him. I know AboveNet has an AUP forbidding spam, but I wonder if they had a customer that was doing something that no one liked but who's actions weren't contrary to their AUP if AboveNet would break their contract with their customer? That would be a really interesting question to pose to their manglement.
Oh well...I rambled enough for tonite.