I don't mean that kind of oddball questions, although I have been known to do that. I mean looking at the resume as they come in and, when they're expecting quesitons like, "So why do you want to work here?" or other typical questions, I'll ask them what language they prefer to use on the backend of a web server for processing data, which web server they like, and why. I have to admit it's almost fun to see their expressions when someone they think is only a business person (hey, the company started on custom software I wrote!) is more focused on the tech than they expect. It takes them a while to get used to that and for them to stop talking down to me.
So why aren't you at the top, making those decisions, if you are so clued in?
Seriously, you missed the point. I've worked in other organizations and still have friends making their living by working for others. For the most part, if you can justify who you hired by citing an alphabet soup behind their name, you're FAR better off in terms of staying in your job than if you hire someone with some risk involved. That's the point: in most companies, it's more about CYA than improving performance.
One point along the way: I see a lot of people here blaming the MBAs and business types. Most of these people know their fields as well as IT people know theirs. It's those people that don't have the background and somehow get into management that are the trouble -- their the ones who will hire on certification and who will let the managers under them do the same thing -- instead of focusing on iniative and creativity.
You are correct, however, for most managers, the first goal is to not get fired and move up the ladder. It is more in the manager's self interest to CYA instead of hiring the best person if there is any risk involved. Yes, the company suffers, but the manager can justify his decision so he able to pass the blame to the interviewee for misrepresentation or other issues.
It's not about good quality work. It's about kissing up and keeping your job!
Since I'm in my own business, this doesn't apply, but if I were a mid-level manager and needed to hire an IT person, and I hire someone with certification I can truthfully say I checked his qualifications. If they screw up, well, it's not my fault because I checked on what I could. But if I hire someone without certification, and they screw up, I can't prove I did all I was supposed to.
At least that's how I hear it from friends. Personally, I'd rather throw out oddball questions that most people won't expect from a manager and see if they actually know how to do what they claim they can -- or can at least think through the process. I'd rather have a competent tech or programmer than a certified one, but if you're not a the top, it can be different. Then it's better to prove you checked credentials and certifications than that the person actually be able to do the job.
After reading his post, I'd say you are attacking him, when he made a legit point. He doesn't say he doesn't know IT. He's got a good point. I've seen it over and over on/. -- people who think that because they are smart in one area, they are smart in many areas. He's talking about understanding people, and that is something your post makes quite clear you don't understand.
If you did, you'd see how offbase your post, even if it is a try at humor, is.
So who has MS created a partnership with in the past that they didn't later burn in every way possible?
As for some of the products you mention, remember, Netscape was out for a while before IE. NN was affordable, IE was an afterthought in the Plus package, and IE only became a center piece of the OS when MS realized the web was popular and had potential. Then they did everything they could to torpedo both the Navigator program and the Netscape company. If you can say NN reacted to IE, you have a minor point, but that's like saying Joan of Arc was attacking England in reaction to England, without including the decades of war and invasion that came before that.
You must live in an interesting world, and it sounds much more interesting than reality.
...It's your responsibility for the lifetime of that computer.
In some ways that is good, but in many it is bad. Many times you don't get the freedom to do all you want. For example, when someone gets a new DSL modem and you set it up, you can advise them about virus checkers and firewalls. They may say, for example, that they want a firewall, but if they have one, why should they need a virus checker, since the firewall keeps it out. You're discussing it with someone that knows less (if possible) about computers than a PHB, and who is operating on their personal budget, so they'll skimp.
In a few weeks guess who gets blamed for all their malware?
Generally, once you set up a computer or any part of a computer or network for someone, they'll start coming to you with every little question and problem. That's great when it is something you can charge for, but there's a lot of quick questions over the phone that take up a good amount of time. If you charge some kind of retainer, you'll get even more questions and calls.
While it is true they will come to you for more paid work, that also means they see you as having responsibility for the well being of their computer, so some people will start blaming you when things go wrong and others will think you are only finding ways to charge them for more work.
Not everyone is this way, but there are many people who are. Taking care of clueless users is not a simple task, and it is never a one-time setup. If you want to do it, great, but there are a lot more demands on your time from such users than the actual on-site paid work.
Mtv's not that credible of a source for anything these days
MTV hasn't changed. The point of MTV has never been to be deep, but has always been, from day one, on the top 40 of music, video, movies, or anything else in pop culture. It is the vanillia tapioca that Ray Bradbury talked about in "Fahrenheit 451." It is the most popular, most shallow part of culture. It never has been, and never was intended to be, anything but the latest big thing and the newest fad.
And there's nothing wrong with that. It is what it is, and has always been that.
It's just that many of us thought it was different because when we were in high school and college, it was focusing on OUR music and our generation, so it seemed relevant. Once we've outgrown that, and started thinking about things like starting a family and making a career, we got away from the constant flow of pop culture, and soon looked back at the new latest fads and finally saw them for what they are: fads and crazes. It just seemed different when it was our fads and crazes of teen years that it focused on.
The gov has yet to present proof. At this point, all that happened was that they declared him (a US citizen) an enemy combatent. According to the PATRIOT act, that gives them the authority to hold him forever, without even having to prove he is an enemy combatant.
The point is a US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant without proof and without *any* kind of trial or hearing. Once this is done, it's over -- unless this case is decided favorably by the Supreme Court. As it is now, I could be declared an enemy combatant (maybe because someone in the gov doesn't like my posts), I'd be put in custody. If --that's IF-- I'm lucky, I'll be able to contact my family and tell them what's happened. As it is now, though, they could declare me an enemy combatant, lock me up, and nobody would know where I was or what happened to me.
It's not just about his rights -- it's about protecting the rights of ALL citizens equally, so the gov can't do to him, you, or me, without following the law.
However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.
And for an ignorant statement like this, a post is scored insightful?
For starters, here's an obvious case: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8629443/>Jose Pidilla. He is an American citizen, who has been held for 4 years (since 2001). The government says he's a terrorist, but they've never proved it. The government was told to either prove he was a terrorist in a trail or to let him go in 90 days. That was way more than 90 days ago, and he's still being held. The government has appealed that ruling, saying they don't have to prove anything and can hold him forever.
So there's one case: An American citizen, held by his own government, with no way to prove his innocence and the government refuses to prove his guilt. His lawyer has stood before the Appeals Court and literally asked that his client be put on trial.
So how would you, if you were an American citizen, and you were in jail for 4 years (and it'll go on longer), waiting and hoping "that the courts would take the opportunity to sort it out"?
There was another case, the name of which I cannot remember, where a court clerk accidently released the wrong documents and it was discovered there was a John Doe who had been held for months. Nobody knew his name, nobody knew the charges, he had not been given a lawyer, and nobody was notified he was being held. The ACLU tried to get permission to speak to him and represent him. I don't remember for sure, but last I heard, I think they were denied -- so we have a John Doe who may or may not be a citizen, being held without anyone knowing who it is and without any of his family having any idea what has happened to him.
The PATRIOT act is the same thing as the House Un-American Activities Committee. Whenever you hear any politician stumping for something that has such an "all-American" name that there is no way any reasonable American could stand against it, then you know it means nothing but trouble for us. Anytime someone has to wrap a group or law in the flag so they can say anyone opposing it is unpatriotic does not have protecting freedom and the Constitution in mind.
For anyone watching the news, and just keeping up with the headlines, the cases above would have been clear. The PATRIOT act has, and will be used to subvert the Constitution. Do you *really* believe you can give the government that much power and nobody in charge will use it?
If that is why you posted, you must not have read the first sentence and paragraph of my post. Not only did I say IANAL, but that I was NOT going in to details. My friend/client with whom I have discussed this MANY times is making a living doing, in a large part, what I described above. He has yet to see a collections company pay attention to a "Do not contact me" letter (it's easier for them to ignore them, since hardly anyone ever follows up on it), and once a collections company violates FDCPA, it is relatively easy to collect the $1000 they owe per violation.
Notice I did not go into details on how to sue, or the full info of what to put in the letter. That's why I said I wasn't going into details. If someone wants to try this, there are many web sites that advise how to do it. I did not give enough info for someone to print out my post and use it as a guide to do it.
So *thppt* to you. All you did was come back and say don't follow as directions a post that stated it didn't include details and was not specific enough for someone to follow as directions. Why (other than ego), was it necessary to say not to follow a post that was too vague to follow anyway?
Actually, there are ways to deal with this. While I don't want to go into details here, and IANAL, most of my clients are, and one of them (who is also a close friend) has told me how to handle collections like this.
Basically, respond in writing and dispute the debt. Tell them not to contact you and to contact your lawyer. ALL collection agencies don't worry about letters like this (btw, send it return receipt requested). Just wait and they will contact you again. When they do, file suit in local court. They will literally end up owing you $1000 for a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If you want details look it up. (I'm not making this up, and it is true!)
If they report on your credit report that you owe the money and you don't, that's a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and if you can prove damages (like "I had perfect credit, and lost out on this chance because of one bad report"), you can collect a heck of a lot more.
I know I'm being literal here, but I love that sentence. It conjures up all sorts of ideas of what could happen if Kansas bans evolution, as opposed to banning the teaching of evolution. Wouldn't it be a sight if they could ban it retroactively?
Yeah, I agree. I cringe whenever I hear the words "government" and "fix" in the same sentence -- even if it's someone saying they can "fix the government," since it's usually someone in the government saying that.
That's just flawed reasoning. Many distros can achieve very high reliability without sacrificing the new-er packages. Debian just operates on a deathly slow release cycle.
Numbers for proof? I know I've seen more crashes and more install problems on all the RPM based systems I've used than I've ever seen on Debian. When I went from Windows to Linux, my system crash rate dropped about 98%. When I switched over to Debian based, while the crash rate was low, it dropped about another 50-60%. I'd say more, but to accurately measure a higher rate, I'd have to have systems running another few years.
People still tend to be moving over to Debian and you may notice that the newer distros and the ones that are increasing the most rapidly in popularity are Debian based. While popularity doesn't prove anything, as long as I've been watching, people running servers tend to migrate toward Debian. I wish I could cite the articles I've read, but I didn't consider the numbers important enough to bookmark. I know a lot of servers ship with Redhat or Suse, but that's a different story.
You also completely dodge all the other points I made in that post. You talk about what other distros have, but you skip the fact that those are only for a few architectures. If you think others are far ahead, show me one where their packages and installers work on as many different architectures as Debian. And if you can't, then you are welcome to write a reliable GUI for the installer that works on more than i386.
Remember (and you ignored this in your response), that Debian supports more architectures than any other, and even the installer has to work on all of them.
As for a desktop, I fail to see why anyone would complain about any desktop. There are so many choices of WMs and so many customization choices within most WMs, if you don't like the desktop, it's your fault. If you've got a number of systems, you can always save your preferences on a flash drive and transport them.
I used to hate Debian, but once I gave it time and got used to it, I found the apt system so much easier than RPM hell (it's even easy to install some of the tricker Perl mods with only apt -- I don't even worry about CPAN).
If it's themes and GUIs you want, go get yourself a copy of Linspire or Xandros. I know that's a bit sarcast, but I am very visually oriented (the whole reason I have a business is to finance my digital video/digital film production company), and I'm tired of hearing people gripe about something they can change and configure so easily.
I never said anything was wrong with the precious Debian.
Sarcasm is not necessary. If you're that emotionally involved, maybe your judgement here, as well as in that other discussion was effected and you may have been more negative than you thought.
If you re-read your post, the very way you asked carries a loaded implication. I even went back and re-read it to see if you were implying or I was inferring. So maybe you might want to consider how you ask a question next time. Your statement implied your point of view included that it was obsolete.
As for it being another problem: from what I see, it seems to be your problem, and you can fix it by dropping the sarcasm.
No you don't understand me -- or don't understand Debian.
Name another release that supports even half the architectures Debian does. It's way ahead of all distros there.
Name a release that has the stability Debian Stable does so you can install it on a server and know it'll run 24/7 without trouble?
Name a relase that not only has regular security updates, but that you can count on adding those security updates automatically every night and know you won't get beeped at 3 am because something's gone down.
Name a release with as many packages available, in easily installable form (without any variation of RPM hell) as Debian.
While you may be a Linux user, and you may respect Debian, your statements make it quite clear you don't understand what Debian does and what the purpose of Debian is. There are 3 branches of Debian: Stable, Testing, and Unstable. The current "release" just means that the Testing branch has gone to Stable. If the eye candy is important to you instead of stability, and you want Debian, use Unstable (which is still more stable than some other distros).
Yes, Suse and Redhat are making a lot of sales for servers, but if you want a system that you know is stable and won't need sudden service after an update and where you can install virtually any package (and, again, Debian has more packages than any other format or distro as well as making them available for more architectures) in Debian and count on it working with little or now tweaking.
So, you see, there is more to be up to date with than just the latest release number. No other distro tests their packages as much as Debian does before declaring them stable. So it took three years for Sarge to go Stable? That just means that there are packages that have had 3 years of testing before being declared stable. Name another distro where that is the case?
If you want stability, support of multiple architectures, dependable security updates, the dependability of being able to install virtually any package without trouble, then Debian is way ahead of other distros. You even get your choice: as stable as possible, moving toward stable, or just recently packaged and still being fixed.
It's your choice: do you want the latest, or the most stable? You can't have it both ways because the latest just hasn't been out long enough to be tested as well as packages that are in the Stable branch.
Recently we had an article on/. about how unstable Debian Stable was. Why wait 32 years for a new release if it isn't because you're waiting for a rock-solid release?
It said the UPGRADING caused problems. Unstable inplies the programs can't run without crashing. The issue was in upgrading from Woody to Sarge.
It also only took 3 years.
Debian should be dead. My crystal ball gives it about 6 more months.
Considering how your comments are based on completely misunderstanding the facts, as shown above, I'm sure we can count on this as an ultra accurate forecast of someone who knows everything about Debian.
I tried Debian a few years ago and hated it. Now I love it. Why? I have 2 boxen that *have* to work or I start losing money. If you go for Stable, which is currently Sarge, then, yes, it is behind the times. Problaby none of the major programs in Sarge are the latest versions, but they are stable and have been tested more than almost any software declared stable on the planet. I know I can install Sarge on these systems and not have to worry. That's the point of Debian: to provide a rock-solid and stable distro that is done right -- in a style developers, admins and programers know is most likely to produce stable programs once they are installed.
If you want more "up-to-date" packages, run Testing (currently Etch) or Unstable (always Sid). The packages are still in the process of being tested and migrating to a stable state, but the latest bells and whistles can be found there for you to play with if a pretty GUI is all you need.
The point is not to look pretty. If you like that, Windows has some very nice wallpaper, and a much prettier installer. If all you're worried about is a GUI, then I suggest you try that OS.
As for gaining market share, if it weren't for the way Debian works, we would not see all the Debian based distros out there like Mepis, Knoppix, Kanotix, and Ubuntu. I know there's more, but they charge too much and don't have enough to make the price worth while.
So Debian guys are not behind everyone else. They are, in many ways ahead -- at least to those who know what they are doing and why they are doing it. If you don't like it, go back to Windows or spend a few bucks on Linspire. When you get to the point where you can appreciate more than a need to gain marketshare or pretty GUIs, then look at Debian.
Nobody here seems to have done the numbers, though. (Surprising for a geek site!)
1% of 40 hours is 24 minutes.
Make a list of activities he wants done and activities that are done weekly in a normal sysadmin job. Estimate the times it takes a trained sysadmin to do them and add up all the times, then point out that as a new sysadmin, it'll take 5-10 times as long on many tasks to learn them, and a few months before you can get the timing down to only a short time per task.
Present real numbers to him so he can see that it takes more than what he thinks. As someone else said, a sysadmin does not directly show up in a profit statement (a sysadmin only enables others to do their job with their computers without having to think about it) and the new boss is looking at the figures. If he hires a sysadmin, that's a lot of money he can't keep himself or use for something else, so he will not want to hire one unless he has to, or will try something like getting a part time sysadmin.
Also, once you get started on sysadmin work, start logging your time. Make sure when you talk with him, you aren't just saying, "System work took up 5 hours yesterday and 6 hours today," show him, with a log what took up that time and why it was important. That way he can't say, "Cut the time down," since you can show that you spent that 6 hours today doing things that had to be done. If you list 15-20 tasks that took 6 hours, that is way better than letting him think you were just slacking off and taking your time.
The new ISOs are up already, so that isn't too slow.
But, then again, just try to get the ISO files for CDs 7 & 8. The links are there, but there's no files! All the other ISOs are there except those two. I wonder if Debian even knows that!
First: I wish everyone would stop putting bible in quotation marks and, in this case, capitalizing it. It is actually a technical term in this case and is not referring to any scriptures of a particular relgigion. Any writer that develops a TV series creates a bible. If the intent is for a series of movies, or any series where there will be multiple scripts written by different people, a bible is a must. It describes the characters involved, the relationships between the characters, the standing sets, and, if it's a tech script, there will also be a tech guide, or tech bible that explains exactly what the different pieces of equipment can do, what their abilities are, and what the limitations are. When my agent first got the "go-ahead" that I'd be pitching to ST:TNG, within 2-3 days there were 2 Trek bibles on my doorstep as well as a stack of paper that was full of summaries of all previous episodes. One bible was the regular writer's guide (often called the series bible), the other was Okuda and Sternbach's tech bible. Even before I pitched to them, they wanted to be sure I had all the rules about the characters and gadgets right.
So, that having been said, I agree. Having a bible is a good thing. It will keep the, "That didn't work like that in the game," problems to a minimum. On the other hand, if the bible was written by gaming people, it could cause problems for a good writer who knows film and finds him or herself restricted by rules that force awkward or limited character development or create situations that don't play well in a 2 hour movie.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean that kind of oddball questions, although I have been known to do that. I mean looking at the resume as they come in and, when they're expecting quesitons like, "So why do you want to work here?" or other typical questions, I'll ask them what language they prefer to use on the backend of a web server for processing data, which web server they like, and why. I have to admit it's almost fun to see their expressions when someone they think is only a business person (hey, the company started on custom software I wrote!) is more focused on the tech than they expect. It takes them a while to get used to that and for them to stop talking down to me.
So why aren't you at the top, making those decisions, if you are so clued in?
Seriously, you missed the point. I've worked in other organizations and still have friends making their living by working for others. For the most part, if you can justify who you hired by citing an alphabet soup behind their name, you're FAR better off in terms of staying in your job than if you hire someone with some risk involved. That's the point: in most companies, it's more about CYA than improving performance.
One point along the way: I see a lot of people here blaming the MBAs and business types. Most of these people know their fields as well as IT people know theirs. It's those people that don't have the background and somehow get into management that are the trouble -- their the ones who will hire on certification and who will let the managers under them do the same thing -- instead of focusing on iniative and creativity.
You are correct, however, for most managers, the first goal is to not get fired and move up the ladder. It is more in the manager's self interest to CYA instead of hiring the best person if there is any risk involved. Yes, the company suffers, but the manager can justify his decision so he able to pass the blame to the interviewee for misrepresentation or other issues.
It's not about good quality work. It's about kissing up and keeping your job!
Since I'm in my own business, this doesn't apply, but if I were a mid-level manager and needed to hire an IT person, and I hire someone with certification I can truthfully say I checked his qualifications. If they screw up, well, it's not my fault because I checked on what I could. But if I hire someone without certification, and they screw up, I can't prove I did all I was supposed to.
At least that's how I hear it from friends. Personally, I'd rather throw out oddball questions that most people won't expect from a manager and see if they actually know how to do what they claim they can -- or can at least think through the process. I'd rather have a competent tech or programmer than a certified one, but if you're not a the top, it can be different. Then it's better to prove you checked credentials and certifications than that the person actually be able to do the job.
After reading his post, I'd say you are attacking him, when he made a legit point. He doesn't say he doesn't know IT. He's got a good point. I've seen it over and over on /. -- people who think that because they are smart in one area, they are smart in many areas. He's talking about understanding people, and that is something your post makes quite clear you don't understand.
If you did, you'd see how offbase your post, even if it is a try at humor, is.
So who has MS created a partnership with in the past that they didn't later burn in every way possible?
As for some of the products you mention, remember, Netscape was out for a while before IE. NN was affordable, IE was an afterthought in the Plus package, and IE only became a center piece of the OS when MS realized the web was popular and had potential. Then they did everything they could to torpedo both the Navigator program and the Netscape company. If you can say NN reacted to IE, you have a minor point, but that's like saying Joan of Arc was attacking England in reaction to England, without including the decades of war and invasion that came before that.
You must live in an interesting world, and it sounds much more interesting than reality.
...It's your responsibility for the lifetime of that computer.
In some ways that is good, but in many it is bad. Many times you don't get the freedom to do all you want. For example, when someone gets a new DSL modem and you set it up, you can advise them about virus checkers and firewalls. They may say, for example, that they want a firewall, but if they have one, why should they need a virus checker, since the firewall keeps it out. You're discussing it with someone that knows less (if possible) about computers than a PHB, and who is operating on their personal budget, so they'll skimp.
In a few weeks guess who gets blamed for all their malware?
Generally, once you set up a computer or any part of a computer or network for someone, they'll start coming to you with every little question and problem. That's great when it is something you can charge for, but there's a lot of quick questions over the phone that take up a good amount of time. If you charge some kind of retainer, you'll get even more questions and calls.
While it is true they will come to you for more paid work, that also means they see you as having responsibility for the well being of their computer, so some people will start blaming you when things go wrong and others will think you are only finding ways to charge them for more work.
Not everyone is this way, but there are many people who are. Taking care of clueless users is not a simple task, and it is never a one-time setup. If you want to do it, great, but there are a lot more demands on your time from such users than the actual on-site paid work.
Mtv's not that credible of a source for anything these days
MTV hasn't changed. The point of MTV has never been to be deep, but has always been, from day one, on the top 40 of music, video, movies, or anything else in pop culture. It is the vanillia tapioca that Ray Bradbury talked about in "Fahrenheit 451." It is the most popular, most shallow part of culture. It never has been, and never was intended to be, anything but the latest big thing and the newest fad.
And there's nothing wrong with that. It is what it is, and has always been that.
It's just that many of us thought it was different because when we were in high school and college, it was focusing on OUR music and our generation, so it seemed relevant. Once we've outgrown that, and started thinking about things like starting a family and making a career, we got away from the constant flow of pop culture, and soon looked back at the new latest fads and finally saw them for what they are: fads and crazes. It just seemed different when it was our fads and crazes of teen years that it focused on.
And the proof of it?
Or do you care if a citizen gets a fair trial anyomre? If they can throw him in without a trial, they can do the same to you.
So you say.
The gov has yet to present proof. At this point, all that happened was that they declared him (a US citizen) an enemy combatent. According to the PATRIOT act, that gives them the authority to hold him forever, without even having to prove he is an enemy combatant.
The point is a US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant without proof and without *any* kind of trial or hearing. Once this is done, it's over -- unless this case is decided favorably by the Supreme Court. As it is now, I could be declared an enemy combatant (maybe because someone in the gov doesn't like my posts), I'd be put in custody. If --that's IF-- I'm lucky, I'll be able to contact my family and tell them what's happened. As it is now, though, they could declare me an enemy combatant, lock me up, and nobody would know where I was or what happened to me.
It's not just about his rights -- it's about protecting the rights of ALL citizens equally, so the gov can't do to him, you, or me, without following the law.
However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.
And for an ignorant statement like this, a post is scored insightful?
For starters, here's an obvious case: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8629443/>Jose Pidilla. He is an American citizen, who has been held for 4 years (since 2001). The government says he's a terrorist, but they've never proved it. The government was told to either prove he was a terrorist in a trail or to let him go in 90 days. That was way more than 90 days ago, and he's still being held. The government has appealed that ruling, saying they don't have to prove anything and can hold him forever.
So there's one case: An American citizen, held by his own government, with no way to prove his innocence and the government refuses to prove his guilt. His lawyer has stood before the Appeals Court and literally asked that his client be put on trial.
So how would you, if you were an American citizen, and you were in jail for 4 years (and it'll go on longer), waiting and hoping "that the courts would take the opportunity to sort it out"?
There was another case, the name of which I cannot remember, where a court clerk accidently released the wrong documents and it was discovered there was a John Doe who had been held for months. Nobody knew his name, nobody knew the charges, he had not been given a lawyer, and nobody was notified he was being held. The ACLU tried to get permission to speak to him and represent him. I don't remember for sure, but last I heard, I think they were denied -- so we have a John Doe who may or may not be a citizen, being held without anyone knowing who it is and without any of his family having any idea what has happened to him.
The PATRIOT act is the same thing as the House Un-American Activities Committee. Whenever you hear any politician stumping for something that has such an "all-American" name that there is no way any reasonable American could stand against it, then you know it means nothing but trouble for us. Anytime someone has to wrap a group or law in the flag so they can say anyone opposing it is unpatriotic does not have protecting freedom and the Constitution in mind.
For anyone watching the news, and just keeping up with the headlines, the cases above would have been clear. The PATRIOT act has, and will be used to subvert the Constitution. Do you *really* believe you can give the government that much power and nobody in charge will use it?
If that is why you posted, you must not have read the first sentence and paragraph of my post. Not only did I say IANAL, but that I was NOT going in to details. My friend/client with whom I have discussed this MANY times is making a living doing, in a large part, what I described above. He has yet to see a collections company pay attention to a "Do not contact me" letter (it's easier for them to ignore them, since hardly anyone ever follows up on it), and once a collections company violates FDCPA, it is relatively easy to collect the $1000 they owe per violation.
Notice I did not go into details on how to sue, or the full info of what to put in the letter. That's why I said I wasn't going into details. If someone wants to try this, there are many web sites that advise how to do it. I did not give enough info for someone to print out my post and use it as a guide to do it.
So *thppt* to you. All you did was come back and say don't follow as directions a post that stated it didn't include details and was not specific enough for someone to follow as directions. Why (other than ego), was it necessary to say not to follow a post that was too vague to follow anyway?
Actually, there are ways to deal with this. While I don't want to go into details here, and IANAL, most of my clients are, and one of them (who is also a close friend) has told me how to handle collections like this.
Basically, respond in writing and dispute the debt. Tell them not to contact you and to contact your lawyer. ALL collection agencies don't worry about letters like this (btw, send it return receipt requested). Just wait and they will contact you again. When they do, file suit in local court. They will literally end up owing you $1000 for a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If you want details look it up. (I'm not making this up, and it is true!)
If they report on your credit report that you owe the money and you don't, that's a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and if you can prove damages (like "I had perfect credit, and lost out on this chance because of one bad report"), you can collect a heck of a lot more.
I think the only state to ban evolution was KS.
I know I'm being literal here, but I love that sentence. It conjures up all sorts of ideas of what could happen if Kansas bans evolution, as opposed to banning the teaching of evolution. Wouldn't it be a sight if they could ban it retroactively?
Yeah, I agree. I cringe whenever I hear the words "government" and "fix" in the same sentence -- even if it's someone saying they can "fix the government," since it's usually someone in the government saying that.
That's just flawed reasoning. Many distros can achieve very high reliability without sacrificing the new-er packages. Debian just operates on a deathly slow release cycle.
Numbers for proof? I know I've seen more crashes and more install problems on all the RPM based systems I've used than I've ever seen on Debian. When I went from Windows to Linux, my system crash rate dropped about 98%. When I switched over to Debian based, while the crash rate was low, it dropped about another 50-60%. I'd say more, but to accurately measure a higher rate, I'd have to have systems running another few years.
People still tend to be moving over to Debian and you may notice that the newer distros and the ones that are increasing the most rapidly in popularity are Debian based. While popularity doesn't prove anything, as long as I've been watching, people running servers tend to migrate toward Debian. I wish I could cite the articles I've read, but I didn't consider the numbers important enough to bookmark. I know a lot of servers ship with Redhat or Suse, but that's a different story.
You also completely dodge all the other points I made in that post. You talk about what other distros have, but you skip the fact that those are only for a few architectures. If you think others are far ahead, show me one where their packages and installers work on as many different architectures as Debian. And if you can't, then you are welcome to write a reliable GUI for the installer that works on more than i386.
Remember (and you ignored this in your response), that Debian supports more architectures than any other, and even the installer has to work on all of them.
As for a desktop, I fail to see why anyone would complain about any desktop. There are so many choices of WMs and so many customization choices within most WMs, if you don't like the desktop, it's your fault. If you've got a number of systems, you can always save your preferences on a flash drive and transport them.
I used to hate Debian, but once I gave it time and got used to it, I found the apt system so much easier than RPM hell (it's even easy to install some of the tricker Perl mods with only apt -- I don't even worry about CPAN).
If it's themes and GUIs you want, go get yourself a copy of Linspire or Xandros. I know that's a bit sarcast, but I am very visually oriented (the whole reason I have a business is to finance my digital video/digital film production company), and I'm tired of hearing people gripe about something they can change and configure so easily.
I never said anything was wrong with the precious Debian.
Sarcasm is not necessary. If you're that emotionally involved, maybe your judgement here, as well as in that other discussion was effected and you may have been more negative than you thought.
If you re-read your post, the very way you asked carries a loaded implication. I even went back and re-read it to see if you were implying or I was inferring. So maybe you might want to consider how you ask a question next time. Your statement implied your point of view included that it was obsolete.
As for it being another problem: from what I see, it seems to be your problem, and you can fix it by dropping the sarcasm.
No you don't understand me -- or don't understand Debian.
Name another release that supports even half the architectures Debian does. It's way ahead of all distros there.
Name a release that has the stability Debian Stable does so you can install it on a server and know it'll run 24/7 without trouble?
Name a relase that not only has regular security updates, but that you can count on adding those security updates automatically every night and know you won't get beeped at 3 am because something's gone down.
Name a release with as many packages available, in easily installable form (without any variation of RPM hell) as Debian.
While you may be a Linux user, and you may respect Debian, your statements make it quite clear you don't understand what Debian does and what the purpose of Debian is. There are 3 branches of Debian: Stable, Testing, and Unstable. The current "release" just means that the Testing branch has gone to Stable. If the eye candy is important to you instead of stability, and you want Debian, use Unstable (which is still more stable than some other distros).
Yes, Suse and Redhat are making a lot of sales for servers, but if you want a system that you know is stable and won't need sudden service after an update and where you can install virtually any package (and, again, Debian has more packages than any other format or distro as well as making them available for more architectures) in Debian and count on it working with little or now tweaking.
So, you see, there is more to be up to date with than just the latest release number. No other distro tests their packages as much as Debian does before declaring them stable. So it took three years for Sarge to go Stable? That just means that there are packages that have had 3 years of testing before being declared stable. Name another distro where that is the case?
If you want stability, support of multiple architectures, dependable security updates, the dependability of being able to install virtually any package without trouble, then Debian is way ahead of other distros. You even get your choice: as stable as possible, moving toward stable, or just recently packaged and still being fixed.
It's your choice: do you want the latest, or the most stable? You can't have it both ways because the latest just hasn't been out long enough to be tested as well as packages that are in the Stable branch.
Recently we had an article on /. about how unstable Debian Stable was. Why wait 32 years for a new release if it isn't because you're waiting for a rock-solid release?
It said the UPGRADING caused problems. Unstable inplies the programs can't run without crashing. The issue was in upgrading from Woody to Sarge.
It also only took 3 years.
Debian should be dead. My crystal ball gives it about 6 more months.
Considering how your comments are based on completely misunderstanding the facts, as shown above, I'm sure we can count on this as an ultra accurate forecast of someone who knows everything about Debian.
That's not the point of Debian.
I tried Debian a few years ago and hated it. Now I love it. Why? I have 2 boxen that *have* to work or I start losing money. If you go for Stable, which is currently Sarge, then, yes, it is behind the times. Problaby none of the major programs in Sarge are the latest versions, but they are stable and have been tested more than almost any software declared stable on the planet. I know I can install Sarge on these systems and not have to worry. That's the point of Debian: to provide a rock-solid and stable distro that is done right -- in a style developers, admins and programers know is most likely to produce stable programs once they are installed.
If you want more "up-to-date" packages, run Testing (currently Etch) or Unstable (always Sid). The packages are still in the process of being tested and migrating to a stable state, but the latest bells and whistles can be found there for you to play with if a pretty GUI is all you need.
The point is not to look pretty. If you like that, Windows has some very nice wallpaper, and a much prettier installer. If all you're worried about is a GUI, then I suggest you try that OS.
As for gaining market share, if it weren't for the way Debian works, we would not see all the Debian based distros out there like Mepis, Knoppix, Kanotix, and Ubuntu. I know there's more, but they charge too much and don't have enough to make the price worth while.
So Debian guys are not behind everyone else. They are, in many ways ahead -- at least to those who know what they are doing and why they are doing it. If you don't like it, go back to Windows or spend a few bucks on Linspire. When you get to the point where you can appreciate more than a need to gain marketshare or pretty GUIs, then look at Debian.
It's 14 CD iso files.
I agree.
Nobody here seems to have done the numbers, though. (Surprising for a geek site!)
1% of 40 hours is 24 minutes.
Make a list of activities he wants done and activities that are done weekly in a normal sysadmin job. Estimate the times it takes a trained sysadmin to do them and add up all the times, then point out that as a new sysadmin, it'll take 5-10 times as long on many tasks to learn them, and a few months before you can get the timing down to only a short time per task.
Present real numbers to him so he can see that it takes more than what he thinks. As someone else said, a sysadmin does not directly show up in a profit statement (a sysadmin only enables others to do their job with their computers without having to think about it) and the new boss is looking at the figures. If he hires a sysadmin, that's a lot of money he can't keep himself or use for something else, so he will not want to hire one unless he has to, or will try something like getting a part time sysadmin.
Also, once you get started on sysadmin work, start logging your time. Make sure when you talk with him, you aren't just saying, "System work took up 5 hours yesterday and 6 hours today," show him, with a log what took up that time and why it was important. That way he can't say, "Cut the time down," since you can show that you spent that 6 hours today doing things that had to be done. If you list 15-20 tasks that took 6 hours, that is way better than letting him think you were just slacking off and taking your time.
The new ISOs are up already, so that isn't too slow.
But, then again, just try to get the ISO files for CDs 7 & 8. The links are there, but there's no files! All the other ISOs are there except those two. I wonder if Debian even knows that!
First: I wish everyone would stop putting bible in quotation marks and, in this case, capitalizing it. It is actually a technical term in this case and is not referring to any scriptures of a particular relgigion. Any writer that develops a TV series creates a bible. If the intent is for a series of movies, or any series where there will be multiple scripts written by different people, a bible is a must. It describes the characters involved, the relationships between the characters, the standing sets, and, if it's a tech script, there will also be a tech guide, or tech bible that explains exactly what the different pieces of equipment can do, what their abilities are, and what the limitations are. When my agent first got the "go-ahead" that I'd be pitching to ST:TNG, within 2-3 days there were 2 Trek bibles on my doorstep as well as a stack of paper that was full of summaries of all previous episodes. One bible was the regular writer's guide (often called the series bible), the other was Okuda and Sternbach's tech bible. Even before I pitched to them, they wanted to be sure I had all the rules about the characters and gadgets right.
So, that having been said, I agree. Having a bible is a good thing. It will keep the, "That didn't work like that in the game," problems to a minimum. On the other hand, if the bible was written by gaming people, it could cause problems for a good writer who knows film and finds him or herself restricted by rules that force awkward or limited character development or create situations that don't play well in a 2 hour movie.
Maybe that layer is planet wide, and part of a larger living organism that will one day be calling us ugly bags of mostly water.
Well someone had to say it...