Also, charging the going rate (which runs $35 to $100 an hour depending on your market) does several things:
It hurts the client's pocketbook just enough that they recognise they've "bought a breakable", and they're more likely to make some effort to keep it "unbroken". So they're more likely to do as told when it comes to avoiding spyware etc. If they persistently and KNOWINGLY do stupid things, you're not charging them enough (the pain in their wallet isn't yet bad enough to discourage the bad behaviour).
It makes them BELIEVE that you really know your stuff. The thought process for services goes thus: If you don't charge the going rate, you must not be very good, because if you WERE any good, you'd cost more!
It gets rid of the whiney deadbeats who are always trying to weasel out of paying for anything, or who promptly break it again and expect you to fix it again for free.
Hence the best way to improve the quality of your client base is... raise your rates. Charge what you are worth in your market.
It also helps if you explain what you're doing as you do it -- it makes the client feel like you really do know your stuff, and helps them get some idea why computers need whatever they need (including protection from spyware etc.) These in turn become loyal clients who do their best to avoid creating problems.
As someone once said, "I have no problem with people who sell for less. They know what their product is worth."
BTW, I charge $50/hr, with a liberal definition of an "hour". An average job is about two hours worth.
The plumber won't feel bad about charging you $50/hour to fix your leaky plumbing. Why should you feel bad about charging $50/hour to fix the plumber's misbehaving computer?
Fixing your leaky faucet is easy for him. Fixing his spyware infestation is easy for you. But both require a certain expertise in your respective fields.
I don't do much at the command prompt anymore (other than using the old DOS util LIST, which I leave trails of behind me everywhere I go) but I started life in DOS, so I can still appreciate the CLI.
I have two computer-support clients who are literally "blind in one eye and can't see outta the other", so when something sucks for accessability, I hear about it! Often the problem isn't that some site/program/whatever LACKS a function that they need; it's that they can't SEE how to get TO said function, because the designer only thought about the function, NOT about how you get TO it.
One reason I prefer NS3.04, with images and js off, is because that effectively strips a lot of the useless crap, and textifies proper CSS layouts (all too many of which specify microscopic fonts). What, I was supposed to be watching dancing advertisements and flaming flash? Oh dear, so sorry. And which colour did you say your text was supposed to be? Egads!!
Background: I used to collect street maps; at one point I had hundreds of them. (Sadly, most were lost when I moved.)
I wonder if a general switch to those two providers explains something I've noticed:
Printed maps used to be better quality than they are now. More accurate, more detail, easier to read. But over the past decade or so, the two best (AAA and Rand-McNally) have really gone downhill, and in similar ways. Now, there ARE no really good printed maps, at least that I've seen. They've lost all the fine detail (dirt roads, etc.) that used to be routinely included.
BTW, don't wave that Thomas Guide at me...[g] TG prints *dedicated* streets, which in SoCal often don't exist except on the city blueprints. AAA always showed *actual* streets, which is far more useful when you discover a very large building sprawled across what TG shows as a street.
Could be partially a side effect of going public: I expect that now they're more interested in developing (and finishing up) stuff that's got commercial market potential, as opposed to being merely user-cool.
So far I've avoided having to mess with cookies...:)
That illustrates a problem with any app that forcibly takes over or disables any prior versions it finds in residence -- screws up the option to run the old version, and can scramble data between 'em if both are still viable. Grrrr.......
On my Win95 box, I have IE3, 4, and 5.00.2314.1003 (the only one I consider a "good" version) all living happily side by side, but quickly found there was no real point in testing (at least what I do -- no js) in IE3/4. OTOH, I've found that IE6 screws up on the damnedest things, including -- M$'s knowledge base pages saved locally. ???!!
I don't expect every site to cater to MY browser, but it sure does annoy me when a site works ONLY in some specific setup. So I try to avoid that, and keep sites reasonably usable for everyone. -- I routinely test with NS3.04 (my *preferred* everyday browser!) and IE5.00, having found that if a site works okay in those, it'll work in everything else (at least well enough to be functional; differences beyond that are usually purely cosmetic). I don't expect layouts to stay put in Mosaic, but so long as the text and links are still tolerably readable... if you wanted purty, you wouldn't be using Lynx in the first place.:)
[hangs head in shame] Alas, you are correct, I are a web d00d... and I don't have Lynx installed... (is there a Lynx for Win32??)
But -- all is not lost!! I use Mosaic 0.9 as a lynx-alike, since it has very limited image and structure handling. And I do have NetTamer (DOS-based lynx clone) installed, tho it woulda required a disconnect and reconnect using its own PPP thingee, and THEN where would this discussion be?:)
Where "sees" means "displays it this way on the status line":
Netscape 3.04 sees http://www.p?ypal.com/ -- looks the same in docsource
OffByOne 3.4a sees http://www.p0ypal.com/ -- looks the same in docsource
K-Meleon 0.9 sees http://www.p?ypal.com/ -- looks like http://www.pypal.com/ in docsource
IE 5.00.2314.1003 (yes, minor builds can make a *big* difference in how IE displays stuff) sees it as http://www.paypal.com/, but the "a" is about half normal size (this is at 1024x768). Docsource as IE feeds it to notepad looks like http://www.pypal.com/
Mozilla 1.5 sees it exactly the same as IE5.00 (above), including docsource
AOLpress (HTML editor with built-in browser) sees it exactly the same as OffByOne (above), including docsource
Netscape 4.50 sees http://www.p?ypal.com/ but displays http://www.pypal.com/ in docsource
Firebird 0.7 sees it exactly the same as Moz 1.5 and IE5.00 (above), including docsource
And Mosaic 0.9 can't figure out WHAT to do with the page and wants to save it to disk.
Indirectly, you make a good point wrt a critical difference between commandline and GUI: once you get into GUI territory, HOW you *present* config settings becomes as important as the config settings themselves -- because if you don't present them in a way that average folk can understand, the very people the GUI is *meant for* won't be able to figure out how to configure stuff, and like as not will get it wrong.
That was kinda my point. Doesn't matter what OS or what firewall (remembering that a "hardware firewall" is just a specialized appliance-PC running a limited OS), sooner or later someone will find a way to breach it. Sooner or later it will need SOME sort of attention.
ISTM that we've become stuck on the notion that there are only two choices in a mass-market OS: insecure and easy, or secure and difficult. Does it really HAVE to be that way??
Now, now, *I* voted for Bush, and I'm not even a Christian!!
What got me, tho, was the fact that this "journalist" is so ignorant of the very subject of his rant, that he'll gladly cheer ANYTHING that in his mind goes against said subject. And his other articles are much the same.
"The biggest problem with Windows is that Microsoft gave a very powerful OS to Joe Servicepack who has NO CLUE how to get it stable and keep it stable."
So the biggest problem with Windows is the users? The solution is clear, then, get rid of Windows users: have them all buy a Mac or install Linux.
And then we'd be hearing instead, "The biggest problem with MacOS/Linux is that Apple/Linus gave a very powerful OS to Joe Servicepack who has NO CLUE how to get it stable and keep it stable."
I checked out some of his other columns, and concluded that this guy pulls out of his ass whatever uber-liberal controversy is hip at the moment, without ever once bothering to check whether there are any facts involved, let alone truth.
And I decided that there is merit in the sidebar quote about his "journalism", to wit: [A] misguided, lost and carnal individual... filled with vexation and ignorance of God [who will] gladly cheer the anti-christ." -- Christian Resource Network
Dr.Watson was a Windows disgnostic of sorts, not an antivirus app.
There was a M$ AV that came with DOS6 (maybe also with DOS5, I forget), and had a front end in Win3.1x. IIRC it was a crippled version of Norton Antivirus. I still occasionally see its old checksum files (checklst.ms or something like that) on very old machines. Anyway, M$AV typically caught around 50% of current viruses -- so it might have been better than nothing, but was still pretty worthless. By comparison, NAV and McAfee (back when both were reasonably decent DOS TSRs) typically caught around 95% of current viruses. However, at the time monkey.b variants were getting past a lot of better AVs too, including NAV and McAfee. I still have a captive specimen from a client who got bit that way.
And when McAfee put out a version that had a ZERO catch rate on my virus zoo, that was the day I switched to F-Prot.
Good points. Sortof like running VMWare in reverse, eh?
And it does make one wonder if a VM that's wise to the TCPA chip might be a solution to the "handcuffed" machine that Alsee (http://slashdot.org/~Alsee) often predicts as the end result of TCPA. If the CPU gets involved, perhaps the "freed" OS could run on a second non-TC CPU on an add-on card, sortof like the old way to run Windows on a Mac??
Just throwing out ideas, some of them possibly cracked. Feel free to add glue as needed.:)
Tho I suppose there might be a workaround, if the machine boots to an "internal use only" OS that boots from a network, and which OS is somehow nowhere to be found when the investigation commences... (well, that may be technically infeasible, but you get what I meant).
That's a good point. What's the difference between a "different" OS and an "upgraded" OS? A: Nothing -- either way, it still won't match the "original" OS.
And as you point out (re SP3 over SP2) -- what's to stop the OS from refusing to play nice if it doesn't encounter the PCR that it expects to see?? Might you have to provide your PCR when the OS is activated, and then you only get updates if the PCR still matches??
Slashdot Mirror
Also, charging the going rate (which runs $35 to $100 an hour depending on your market) does several things:
It hurts the client's pocketbook just enough that they recognise they've "bought a breakable", and they're more likely to make some effort to keep it "unbroken". So they're more likely to do as told when it comes to avoiding spyware etc. If they persistently and KNOWINGLY do stupid things, you're not charging them enough (the pain in their wallet isn't yet bad enough to discourage the bad behaviour).
It makes them BELIEVE that you really know your stuff. The thought process for services goes thus: If you don't charge the going rate, you must not be very good, because if you WERE any good, you'd cost more!
It gets rid of the whiney deadbeats who are always trying to weasel out of paying for anything, or who promptly break it again and expect you to fix it again for free.
Hence the best way to improve the quality of your client base is... raise your rates. Charge what you are worth in your market.
It also helps if you explain what you're doing as you do it -- it makes the client feel like you really do know your stuff, and helps them get some idea why computers need whatever they need (including protection from spyware etc.) These in turn become loyal clients who do their best to avoid creating problems.
As someone once said, "I have no problem with people who sell for less. They know what their product is worth."
BTW, I charge $50/hr, with a liberal definition of an "hour". An average job is about two hours worth.
The plumber won't feel bad about charging you $50/hour to fix your leaky plumbing. Why should you feel bad about charging $50/hour to fix the plumber's misbehaving computer?
;)
Fixing your leaky faucet is easy for him. Fixing his spyware infestation is easy for you. But both require a certain expertise in your respective fields.
No, no, not THAT plumbing....
I don't do much at the command prompt anymore (other than using the old DOS util LIST, which I leave trails of behind me everywhere I go) but I started life in DOS, so I can still appreciate the CLI.
I have two computer-support clients who are literally "blind in one eye and can't see outta the other", so when something sucks for accessability, I hear about it! Often the problem isn't that some site/program/whatever LACKS a function that they need; it's that they can't SEE how to get TO said function, because the designer only thought about the function, NOT about how you get TO it.
One reason I prefer NS3.04, with images and js off, is because that effectively strips a lot of the useless crap, and textifies proper CSS layouts (all too many of which specify microscopic fonts). What, I was supposed to be watching dancing advertisements and flaming flash? Oh dear, so sorry. And which colour did you say your text was supposed to be? Egads!!
Background: I used to collect street maps; at one point I had hundreds of them. (Sadly, most were lost when I moved.)
I wonder if a general switch to those two providers explains something I've noticed:
Printed maps used to be better quality than they are now. More accurate, more detail, easier to read. But over the past decade or so, the two best (AAA and Rand-McNally) have really gone downhill, and in similar ways. Now, there ARE no really good printed maps, at least that I've seen. They've lost all the fine detail (dirt roads, etc.) that used to be routinely included.
BTW, don't wave that Thomas Guide at me...[g] TG prints *dedicated* streets, which in SoCal often don't exist except on the city blueprints. AAA always showed *actual* streets, which is far more useful when you discover a very large building sprawled across what TG shows as a street.
Could be partially a side effect of going public: I expect that now they're more interested in developing (and finishing up) stuff that's got commercial market potential, as opposed to being merely user-cool.
Careful about poking into those dropshadows. You may be eaten by a grue.
So far I've avoided having to mess with cookies... :)
That illustrates a problem with any app that forcibly takes over or disables any prior versions it finds in residence -- screws up the option to run the old version, and can scramble data between 'em if both are still viable. Grrrr.......
Cool, good info, thanks.
On my Win95 box, I have IE3, 4, and 5.00.2314.1003 (the only one I consider a "good" version) all living happily side by side, but quickly found there was no real point in testing (at least what I do -- no js) in IE3/4. OTOH, I've found that IE6 screws up on the damnedest things, including -- M$'s knowledge base pages saved locally. ???!!
Coolness, it's now in my pending-download list.
:)
:)
I don't expect every site to cater to MY browser, but it sure does annoy me when a site works ONLY in some specific setup. So I try to avoid that, and keep sites reasonably usable for everyone. -- I routinely test with NS3.04 (my *preferred* everyday browser!) and IE5.00, having found that if a site works okay in those, it'll work in everything else (at least well enough to be functional; differences beyond that are usually purely cosmetic). I don't expect layouts to stay put in Mosaic, but so long as the text and links are still tolerably readable... if you wanted purty, you wouldn't be using Lynx in the first place.
Crap, I forgot to test in NS2.02!!
[hangs head in shame] Alas, you are correct, I are a web d00d... and I don't have Lynx installed... (is there a Lynx for Win32??)
:)
But -- all is not lost!! I use Mosaic 0.9 as a lynx-alike, since it has very limited image and structure handling. And I do have NetTamer (DOS-based lynx clone) installed, tho it woulda required a disconnect and reconnect using its own PPP thingee, and THEN where would this discussion be?
Forgot that /. eats some stuff... the "absent" bit in the "docsource" should be
;
& # 1072
without any spaces.
[hits self with preview button]
Where "sees" means "displays it this way on the status line":
:)
Netscape 3.04 sees http://www.p?ypal.com/ -- looks the same in docsource
OffByOne 3.4a sees http://www.p0ypal.com/ -- looks the same in docsource
K-Meleon 0.9 sees http://www.p?ypal.com/ -- looks like http://www.pypal.com/ in docsource
IE 5.00.2314.1003 (yes, minor builds can make a *big* difference in how IE displays stuff) sees it as http://www.paypal.com/, but the "a" is about half normal size (this is at 1024x768). Docsource as IE feeds it to notepad looks like http://www.pypal.com/
Mozilla 1.5 sees it exactly the same as IE5.00 (above), including docsource
AOLpress (HTML editor with built-in browser) sees it exactly the same as OffByOne (above), including docsource
Netscape 4.50 sees http://www.p?ypal.com/ but displays http://www.pypal.com/ in docsource
Firebird 0.7 sees it exactly the same as Moz 1.5 and IE5.00 (above), including docsource
And Mosaic 0.9 can't figure out WHAT to do with the page and wants to save it to disk.
At this point, I ran out of installed browsers.
Indirectly, you make a good point wrt a critical difference between commandline and GUI: once you get into GUI territory, HOW you *present* config settings becomes as important as the config settings themselves -- because if you don't present them in a way that average folk can understand, the very people the GUI is *meant for* won't be able to figure out how to configure stuff, and like as not will get it wrong.
Egads, you mean I'll wind up sharing a bunk with a bunch of Democrats? :)
That was kinda my point. Doesn't matter what OS or what firewall (remembering that a "hardware firewall" is just a specialized appliance-PC running a limited OS), sooner or later someone will find a way to breach it. Sooner or later it will need SOME sort of attention.
ISTM that we've become stuck on the notion that there are only two choices in a mass-market OS: insecure and easy, or secure and difficult. Does it really HAVE to be that way??
Now, now, *I* voted for Bush, and I'm not even a Christian!!
What got me, tho, was the fact that this "journalist" is so ignorant of the very subject of his rant, that he'll gladly cheer ANYTHING that in his mind goes against said subject. And his other articles are much the same.
So the biggest problem with Windows is the users? The solution is clear, then, get rid of Windows users: have them all buy a Mac or install Linux.
And then we'd be hearing instead, "The biggest problem with MacOS/Linux is that Apple/Linus gave a very powerful OS to Joe Servicepack who has NO CLUE how to get it stable and keep it stable."
[looking]
I checked out some of his other columns, and concluded that this guy pulls out of his ass whatever uber-liberal controversy is hip at the moment, without ever once bothering to check whether there are any facts involved, let alone truth.
And I decided that there is merit in the sidebar quote about his "journalism", to wit: [A] misguided, lost and carnal individual... filled with vexation and ignorance of God [who will] gladly cheer the anti-christ." -- Christian Resource Network
Yeah, that could be a problem... Someone mentioned that what *you* compile, *you* can sign, but that somehow doesn't seem broadly practical.
Dr.Watson was a Windows disgnostic of sorts, not an antivirus app.
There was a M$ AV that came with DOS6 (maybe also with DOS5, I forget), and had a front end in Win3.1x. IIRC it was a crippled version of Norton Antivirus. I still occasionally see its old checksum files (checklst.ms or something like that) on very old machines. Anyway, M$AV typically caught around 50% of current viruses -- so it might have been better than nothing, but was still pretty worthless. By comparison, NAV and McAfee (back when both were reasonably decent DOS TSRs) typically caught around 95% of current viruses. However, at the time monkey.b variants were getting past a lot of better AVs too, including NAV and McAfee. I still have a captive specimen from a client who got bit that way.
And when McAfee put out a version that had a ZERO catch rate on my virus zoo, that was the day I switched to F-Prot.
AOL's main server node is in Virginia, right?? Oh dear...
Good points. Sortof like running VMWare in reverse, eh?
:)
And it does make one wonder if a VM that's wise to the TCPA chip might be a solution to the "handcuffed" machine that Alsee (http://slashdot.org/~Alsee) often predicts as the end result of TCPA. If the CPU gets involved, perhaps the "freed" OS could run on a second non-TC CPU on an add-on card, sortof like the old way to run Windows on a Mac??
Just throwing out ideas, some of them possibly cracked. Feel free to add glue as needed.
If you can't beat 'em, beat 'em up. -- Fred Roggin
Very useful for investigations, eh?
Tho I suppose there might be a workaround, if the machine boots to an "internal use only" OS that boots from a network, and which OS is somehow nowhere to be found when the investigation commences... (well, that may be technically infeasible, but you get what I meant).
That's a good point. What's the difference between a "different" OS and an "upgraded" OS? A: Nothing -- either way, it still won't match the "original" OS.
And as you point out (re SP3 over SP2) -- what's to stop the OS from refusing to play nice if it doesn't encounter the PCR that it expects to see?? Might you have to provide your PCR when the OS is activated, and then you only get updates if the PCR still matches??
Can, meet worms.