And on that note I guess I am going to head into the Gym now.....
No seriously, I can see a certain sense in having a Segway (postalworkers for example) but for the average person? Heck, that thing has the ability to become the SUV of Sidewalks.
You are aware though that in general the market is down right now and that there are more than enough people who take pay cuts?
A contractor I know made $100 an hour, when his contract came up for renewal it went down to $60. Why? Because there are a lot of other people out there who are looking for a job.
So in the end that they make less right now than you do 7 years ago, fresh out of college, doesn't really proof anything.
I think there is the wrong idea that the older you are the more money you should be able to make (just because you're old), that doesn't really apply and much less so (unfortunatly?) in the IT field where "young is gold".
Okay okay, you got me there, but in the end the point I tried to make was that he definetly didn't become an american or naturalized just to work in the US.
Of course at the end of the day there are less CEO's on such provisions as there tend to be a lot fewer job openings.
Funny how CEO positions are never filled with H1-B folk though...
I am not sure but I would wager a guess that the guy who heads up Crysler (and who is German BTW, Dieter Zetsche(sp?)) is most likely on an H1B in the US. I don't think he gave up his German nationality to get a green card.
Both Germany and Japan had scientists puttering around on atomic bombs, but only the U.S. had scientific leadership--determined to see the project culminate the production of a weapon.
By my understanding the German scientists were VERY close of getting it working but they also had ethical questions about creating such a weapon (and if my mind serves me right so did Oppenheimer when he worked for the US).
Also, there were quite some jewish researchers working for Nazi Germany, simply because Hitler wasn't so stupid to throw brain cells away if they could help him reach his ultimate goal.
If the United States starts to discourage participation by foreign students and scientists, we abandon one of the historic sources of our leadership and risk falling behind
Research I would guess is done where the researcher feel free enough to follow his ideas and ideologies (unless his sole motivation is "patriotism".
In any regards, what makes the US a research heaven right now is that there is a lot of money, a lot of equipment and still the idea that the US is a free country in which someone can live without any repression. Actions like the one the US Government is proposing right now is activly hurting this image and the consequences (I would think) won't be seen for a couple of more years. But I wouldn't be surprised that in the future more and more foreign students choose either another country or return as soon as they have finished their studies instead of staying in the US.
Actually Nazi Germany wasn't all that choosy when it came to decide who can and cannot "further the weapson knowledge of the Grossdeutsche Reich". There was more than one jewish research working for the Nazis even while the Death Camps where in high production.
Having been through Project Managment training and being part in a lot more projects than I want to count on I can tell you right now that a REAL and GOOD PM is the best thing that can happen to a project.
Not only is he going to shield the team from unnecessary distractions : "Hey Cliff, would you mind putting XXXX in?" he is also going to make sure that everybody gets the big picture (we all know how much tunnelvision we can have).
No I agree, a GOOD Project Manager is what a lot of IT projects need, but as said before: It is extremly undervalued ("Why waste 2 months of planning? We can just jump right in and write the code." Ever heard that before?).
A couple of weeks ago I created an account because someone wanted to yack with me on MSN (don't ask) and within 2 minutes of having the account active guess what I got: Correct, Spam.
>>And here we run into the over-inflated opinion problem again. I am not on your system. I am on the end-user's system. You are to help me do whatever the end-user requires.
Okay, how does this usually go?
The System is bought because someone (reads enduser) has a requirement for the system. The programmers than write the application (or we just install something stock like say Oracle), then the SysAdmins take over the daily tasks, monitor the thing, patch it, make sure it runs. In my book that means it is MY system. I am on the line for it.
Not convinced? Fine, let's see how a project should work out:
Enduser defines requirement. Software Architect and System Architect sit down and design the system and everything else that is necessary.
Then the SysAdmins start building the system and the programmers start programming their piece, everything is tested, and then the user gets access to the application.
Sounds simple, right?
By your account the next step would be that the programmers hand over the program sourcecode to the enduser because the enduser owns the program and the sysadmins hand over the root password to the enduser because (again according to you) they own the system.
Now, if something goes wrong (let's say enduser made changes to the code and broke it) it's the endusers responsibility? Or who is?
Do you get my point? Own == responsibility and the ENDUSER is NOT responsible for the system. They "own" the box and they have a stake in what is done to it (it is called change managment) but the responsibility for the System is in the hand of the SysAdmin and the responsibility for the application is in the hand of the programmer.
About the rest I agree with the other post, there is definetly an attitude problem with some people in the business.
>> It is not owned by the company admins. It is owned by the company. Admins are just people doing a job which the company requires.
The company buys the machine and then what? The company is not a person it might own the physical box but it is not it's responsibility. Owning == Responsiblity and at the end of the day it is a SysAdmins responsibility. I have never heard a user complain about the "fucked up job the company did" with a server, have you?
>>I've always thought Syadmins to have an over-inflated importance in the world. [...] Many admins forget that the point isn't to have lots of wonderfully run locked-down computers that don't do anything (damned users! get in the way of my policies...). A computer is a tool - a beautifully polished tool that doesn't do anything is worthless.
Granted the job of a Sysadmin is to keep the machines running so that the user can do their job, but to say they are "unimportant" is absolutly stupid.
The job is more like a janitor, you "own" the house, you make sure that everything is clean, that the kids are not running in then hallways and that the bathrooms are clean.
Having said that, that also means that I am going to restrict of what a user can and cannot do, in order to make the system work for EVERYBODY.
The problem is mostly not the endusers, they are EASY to deal with, the problem in my own experience are all those wonderful programmers who think because they can write some code they should have all the rights, all the power and oh yeah, root because "Well, the program can only do what it is supposed to do when it is run as root." Right, permissions are for wimps.
I never had a real problem with an enduser that couldn't be solved after some facetime, on the other hand I had Programmers who activly tried to root production boxes because they NEEDED to testrun a program that had failed on the dev AND test box (he later claimed they were broken, yeah right), never heard of permissions, it sometimes amazes me how little of an understanding programmers have about System Architecture and security.
Sorry, but face it, if you ARE on my System *I* am the one who tells you what you can do and can't do. I AM the cop on that system and if you don't behave I make sure you can't do much damage.
Sounds "God like"? No, I never kill processes without first knowing what they are doing or why unless they jepardize the system.
Oh, and for the guy who tried to root the box: He got a warning from the manager and I am sure he thinks about me the same way you think about Sysadmins.
... and as I don't have to be anywhere, with anyone, I didn't do much else but play Splinter Cell, went for an hours run in the new snow and for some reason convinced myself to the fact that an hour on the bike trainer with Coach troy and the spinerval tapes would be fun....
Years ago I was writing movie reviews and I had the attitude that I wanted to be fair, that every movie at least had SOMETHING good to it.
I was sitting in the theater with people who wrote reviews for 20+ years, who were cynical and who seemed a bit arrogant...
A year later I was like them. Why? Because on average you watch 6 - 10 movies a WEEK, I think my record was 12, and after a while you are just tired of all the crap that is out there.
It's not the reviewers who are usually full of crap it's just that you can only see so much bad movies before you start puking.
BTW, I saw the movie today and I agree it is forgettable, nice eye candy but you can just as well watch it when it comes out on Video.... Rent it, don't buy it.
>>But i'm talking about a bike that goes from 0 - 100 (kph) in 2.5 secs, that in first gear goes up to 140 kph... it's not the same... try using a formula 1 car in every day traffic...
More than once I had the same experience, you stand at a trafffic light, you go, shift up into second, check your speed: "Oopps, 100k/h already".
Only threw it away once and that was the fault of my passenger who NEVER FUCKING LEARNED how to behave.
>>But 100% surety of success is not the main thing. The main thing is doing the right thing because that is what humans need to do to maintain what we have worked so hard to build. There are barbarians in the gates. To sit by idly is to watch it all burn. I wont do it.
I don't say that, but I think that you never know WHAT you would be doing until you are in the situation.
Reality is that I think I would try to interfere as well, BUT that's academic because I have never been in that situation.
I still just think that guns in at leat 99% of the cases do NOT help the situation, it gives you a false sense of security (I know what I say here, I had the chance to shoot a handgun a couple of times and I guess the weight of the gun would give you a "good feeling").
>> I didn't mean to imply that Canada is monolithic, simply more monolithic. Certainly there is a mixture/mosaic of cultures there as here, but simply as a matter of population, there is more racial diversity in America. This is a matter of statistics, and certainly doesn't make one better than the other.> What is certainly true is that she was left exactly as badly hurt as he had intended. He did not need a gun to kill her. What a gun certainly would have done is evened the score. In any event, I'm not willing to cut my losses without guns and just say "well, she may get the shit kicked out of her every few months, but at least she's alive"
Let's think about this for a moment, if there would have been a gun in the house a couple of things could / needed to happen:
- She would have had to have the CHANCE to get the gun (out of her handbag, drawer whatever).
- IF she got the gun out she would have to be able to FIRE it before he could disarm her.
- IF he disarmed her, you better hope that he wasn't so mad at her that he just pulled the trigger.
Arguing that guns de-escalate is like arguing that you can exhaust a fire by pouring Kerosin into it, after all once the house is burned down the fire will die.
>> Police carry to prevent crime, namely injury to themselves as they try to enforce the law. So, the lawful armed citizen is a Good Thing. Laws disarm only the lawful.
Yes, and they are considered a "last resort" the idea is that if all other means fail than they can be used.
I don't know how they handle that in the US but to my knowledge if an officer fires his gun in Germany there is an inquiry and they try to determine if drawing and shooting the gun was warranted.
>>If I were in one of those cars- probably not- we would have been heading to the hospital as rapidly as possible. If I had been in one of the many, many cars there at the time. That would have been a different story. I would have stopped and killed him. Maybe save a life or 2 while I'm at it. That's what I mean by an individual's responsibility towards the whole. If 10 more people like me had been there- even if all 3 hit had been packing, that leaves 7 to take care of business.
I doubt you would have, first of all if your family would have been there and you carry the gun to protect them you would have tried to get away and not risk having them shot.
Secondly, I guess you can pull the trigger if you are under fire, if youre adrenaline is pumping, yes, but I doubt you could simply walk up to someone and shoot them.
Just my 2 cents, of course chances are very high I am wrong.
>>This post reflects that attitude, (or fear of that attitude, which is not unfounded) by stating that he always carries a gun. I don't think that solves the problem. I think to solve the problem we need to examine why people feel they need to exert physical force over everyone else.
I read somewhere the following (paraphrased):
"Out of fear comes anger, anger leads to violence."
Seems to make sense to me, I wonder what is going to escalate the situation more? One guy having a gun robbing me or we both having a gun?
By the time the gun is in my face the chance for me to draw mine without getting shot first (and let's face it if the guy has a gun he'll be nervous and WILL pull the trigger) is pretty much zero.
But fine, let's assume for a moment I have my gun out and we both have it at each others face, will that make him think twice? I doubt it.
Reality is that the gun gives you a false sense of security and power. Heck if someone wants to rob me and take my credit cards and cash go ahead, knock yourself out, I ain't gonna stop you.
If they didn't intend to rob me but do bodily harm it doesn't matter in the first place (see point one).
The problem is not if gun control is needed or not, the question is why is most of the US so scared that they THINK they need guns?
Someone wrote here that most people behave like bullies, I think he is right, and it also shows in the foreign policy the US has, never appear weak, make sure that nobody even gets the idea to mess with you. Hence SUV's, Guns and the "bigger is better" attiude.
Gun control isn't going to solve it, the only way this is going to solve is to get to the root of the problem and the chances for that I would guess are nil.
I agree with your sentinment and I think it is very true.
BUT (you knew that was coming) when it comes to companies this DOES NOT apply anymore. Companies (by their own definition) exist to make money, as such they have to PAY money for services as well.
If you feel bad about this money take it and donate it (e.g. EFF) but I wouldn't give them my services for free anymore (I was in that situation in the past and I DID charge).
Still not convinced? Ask yourself this, if the situation would have been reversed, if HE needed something from the company (let's say health coverage because he got injured) would THEY have given it to him?
When I moved lately I had a guy come out as they needed to "configure my pc".
I showed him to my Linux firewall, he was surprised about the prompt but figured it was just DOS (ha).
Put in the cd, realised it was not DOS, took the CD out, turned to me and said: "Well, I guess you know what you're doing." And left.
Offically my Cable Provider (Rogers) is not supporting Linux / Unix but if you have a technical issue just bug the Second Line support and 99% of the time you get the Unix guy who answers your questions.
Slashdot Mirror
And on that note I guess I am going to head into the Gym now.....
No seriously, I can see a certain sense in having a Segway (postalworkers for example) but for the average person? Heck, that thing has the ability to become the SUV of Sidewalks.
You are aware though that in general the market is down right now and that there are more than enough people who take pay cuts?
A contractor I know made $100 an hour, when his contract came up for renewal it went down to $60. Why? Because there are a lot of other people out there who are looking for a job.
So in the end that they make less right now than you do 7 years ago, fresh out of college, doesn't really proof anything.
I think there is the wrong idea that the older you are the more money you should be able to make (just because you're old), that doesn't really apply and much less so (unfortunatly?) in the IT field where "young is gold".
Just an observation.
Okay okay, you got me there, but in the end the point I tried to make was that he definetly didn't become an american or naturalized just to work in the US.
Of course at the end of the day there are less CEO's on such provisions as there tend to be a lot fewer job openings.
M.
I am not sure but I would wager a guess that the guy who heads up Crysler (and who is German BTW, Dieter Zetsche(sp?)) is most likely on an H1B in the US. I don't think he gave up his German nationality to get a green card.
Both Germany and Japan had scientists puttering around on atomic bombs, but only the U.S. had scientific leadership--determined to see the project culminate the production of a weapon.
By my understanding the German scientists were VERY close of getting it working but they also had ethical questions about creating such a weapon (and if my mind serves me right so did Oppenheimer when he worked for the US).
Also, there were quite some jewish researchers working for Nazi Germany, simply because Hitler wasn't so stupid to throw brain cells away if they could help him reach his ultimate goal.
If the United States starts to discourage participation by foreign students and scientists, we abandon one of the historic sources of our leadership and risk falling behind
Research I would guess is done where the researcher feel free enough to follow his ideas and ideologies (unless his sole motivation is "patriotism".
In any regards, what makes the US a research heaven right now is that there is a lot of money, a lot of equipment and still the idea that the US is a free country in which someone can live without any repression. Actions like the one the US Government is proposing right now is activly hurting this image and the consequences (I would think) won't be seen for a couple of more years. But I wouldn't be surprised that in the future more and more foreign students choose either another country or return as soon as they have finished their studies instead of staying in the US.
Actually Nazi Germany wasn't all that choosy when it came to decide who can and cannot "further the weapson knowledge of the Grossdeutsche Reich". There was more than one jewish research working for the Nazis even while the Death Camps where in high production.
Having been through Project Managment training and being part in a lot more projects than I want to count on I can tell you right now that a REAL and GOOD PM is the best thing that can happen to a project.
Not only is he going to shield the team from unnecessary distractions : "Hey Cliff, would you mind putting XXXX in?" he is also going to make sure that everybody gets the big picture (we all know how much tunnelvision we can have).
No I agree, a GOOD Project Manager is what a lot of IT projects need, but as said before: It is extremly undervalued ("Why waste 2 months of planning? We can just jump right in and write the code." Ever heard that before?).
Oh no, I can confirm that, even worse.
A couple of weeks ago I created an account because someone wanted to yack with me on MSN (don't ask) and within 2 minutes of having the account active guess what I got: Correct, Spam.
That must be a new record.
>>And here we run into the over-inflated opinion problem again. I am not on your system. I am on the end-user's system. You are to help me do whatever the end-user requires.
Okay, how does this usually go?
The System is bought because someone (reads enduser) has a requirement for the system. The programmers than write the application (or we just install something stock like say Oracle), then the SysAdmins take over the daily tasks, monitor the thing, patch it, make sure it runs. In my book that means it is MY system. I am on the line for it.
Not convinced? Fine, let's see how a project should work out:
Enduser defines requirement. Software Architect and System Architect sit down and design the system and everything else that is necessary.
Then the SysAdmins start building the system and the programmers start programming their piece, everything is tested, and then the user gets access to the application.
Sounds simple, right?
By your account the next step would be that the programmers hand over the program sourcecode to the enduser because the enduser owns the program and the sysadmins hand over the root password to the enduser because (again according to you) they own the system.
Now, if something goes wrong (let's say enduser made changes to the code and broke it) it's the endusers responsibility? Or who is?
Do you get my point? Own == responsibility and the ENDUSER is NOT responsible for the system. They "own" the box and they have a stake in what is done to it (it is called change managment) but the responsibility for the System is in the hand of the SysAdmin and the responsibility for the application is in the hand of the programmer.
About the rest I agree with the other post, there is definetly an attitude problem with some people in the business.
>> It is not owned by the company admins. It is owned by the company. Admins are just people doing a job which the company requires.
The company buys the machine and then what? The company is not a person it might own the physical box but it is not it's responsibility. Owning == Responsiblity and at the end of the day it is a SysAdmins responsibility. I have never heard a user complain about the "fucked up job the company did" with a server, have you?
M.
>>I've always thought Syadmins to have an over-inflated importance in the world. [...] Many admins forget that the point isn't to have lots of wonderfully run locked-down computers that don't do anything (damned users! get in the way of my policies...). A computer is a tool - a beautifully polished tool that doesn't do anything is worthless.
Granted the job of a Sysadmin is to keep the machines running so that the user can do their job, but to say they are "unimportant" is absolutly stupid.
The job is more like a janitor, you "own" the house, you make sure that everything is clean, that the kids are not running in then hallways and that the bathrooms are clean.
Having said that, that also means that I am going to restrict of what a user can and cannot do, in order to make the system work for EVERYBODY.
The problem is mostly not the endusers, they are EASY to deal with, the problem in my own experience are all those wonderful programmers who think because they can write some code they should have all the rights, all the power and oh yeah, root because "Well, the program can only do what it is supposed to do when it is run as root." Right, permissions are for wimps.
I never had a real problem with an enduser that couldn't be solved after some facetime, on the other hand I had Programmers who activly tried to root production boxes because they NEEDED to testrun a program that had failed on the dev AND test box (he later claimed they were broken, yeah right), never heard of permissions, it sometimes amazes me how little of an understanding programmers have about System Architecture and security.
Sorry, but face it, if you ARE on my System *I* am the one who tells you what you can do and can't do. I AM the cop on that system and if you don't behave I make sure you can't do much damage.
Sounds "God like"? No, I never kill processes without first knowing what they are doing or why unless they jepardize the system.
Oh, and for the guy who tried to root the box: He got a warning from the manager and I am sure he thinks about me the same way you think about Sysadmins.
M.
... and as I don't have to be anywhere, with anyone, I didn't do much else but play Splinter Cell, went for an hours run in the new snow and for some reason convinced myself to the fact that an hour on the bike trainer with Coach troy and the spinerval tapes would be fun....
Or: A day like any other.
Years ago I was writing movie reviews and I had the attitude that I wanted to be fair, that every movie at least had SOMETHING good to it.
I was sitting in the theater with people who wrote reviews for 20+ years, who were cynical and who seemed a bit arrogant...
A year later I was like them. Why? Because on average you watch 6 - 10 movies a WEEK, I think my record was 12, and after a while you are just tired of all the crap that is out there.
It's not the reviewers who are usually full of crap it's just that you can only see so much bad movies before you start puking.
BTW, I saw the movie today and I agree it is forgettable, nice eye candy but you can just as well watch it when it comes out on Video.... Rent it, don't buy it.
Thanks.
Interresting,
so tell me (and I really DO want to know) where / how does one learn to play the tables?
>>But i'm talking about a bike that goes from 0 - 100 (kph) in 2.5 secs, that in first gear goes up to 140 kph ... it's not the same ... try using a formula 1 car in every day traffic ...
More than once I had the same experience, you stand at a trafffic light, you go, shift up into second, check your speed: "Oopps, 100k/h already".
Only threw it away once and that was the fault of my passenger who NEVER FUCKING LEARNED how to behave.
M.
>>But 100% surety of success is not the main thing. The main thing is doing the right thing because that is what humans need to do to maintain what we have worked so hard to build. There are barbarians in the gates. To sit by idly is to watch it all burn. I wont do it.
I don't say that, but I think that you never know WHAT you would be doing until you are in the situation.
Reality is that I think I would try to interfere as well, BUT that's academic because I have never been in that situation.
I still just think that guns in at leat 99% of the cases do NOT help the situation, it gives you a false sense of security (I know what I say here, I had the chance to shoot a handgun a couple of times and I guess the weight of the gun would give you a "good feeling").
>> I didn't mean to imply that Canada is monolithic, simply more monolithic. Certainly there is a mixture/mosaic of cultures there as here, but simply as a matter of population, there is more racial diversity in America. This is a matter of statistics, and certainly doesn't make one better than the other.>
What is certainly true is that she was left exactly as badly hurt as he had intended. He did not need a gun to kill her. What a gun certainly would have done is evened the score. In any event, I'm not willing to cut my losses without guns and just say "well, she may get the shit kicked out of her every few months, but at least she's alive"
Let's think about this for a moment, if there would have been a gun in the house a couple of things could / needed to happen:
- She would have had to have the CHANCE to get the gun (out of her handbag, drawer whatever).
- IF she got the gun out she would have to be able to FIRE it before he could disarm her.
- IF he disarmed her, you better hope that he wasn't so mad at her that he just pulled the trigger.
Arguing that guns de-escalate is like arguing that you can exhaust a fire by pouring Kerosin into it, after all once the house is burned down the fire will die.
>> Police carry to prevent crime, namely injury to themselves as they try to enforce the law. So, the lawful armed citizen is a Good Thing. Laws disarm only the lawful.
Yes, and they are considered a "last resort" the idea is that if all other means fail than they can be used.
I don't know how they handle that in the US but to my knowledge if an officer fires his gun in Germany there is an inquiry and they try to determine if drawing and shooting the gun was warranted.
>>If I were in one of those cars- probably not- we would have been heading to the hospital as rapidly as possible. If I had been in one of the many, many cars there at the time. That would have been a different story. I would have stopped and killed him. Maybe save a life or 2 while I'm at it. That's what I mean by an individual's responsibility towards the whole. If 10 more people like me had been there- even if all 3 hit had been packing, that leaves 7 to take care of business.
I doubt you would have, first of all if your family would have been there and you carry the gun to protect them you would have tried to get away and not risk having them shot.
Secondly, I guess you can pull the trigger if you are under fire, if youre adrenaline is pumping, yes, but I doubt you could simply walk up to someone and shoot them.
Just my 2 cents, of course chances are very high I am wrong.
>>This post reflects that attitude, (or fear of that attitude, which is not unfounded) by stating that he always carries a gun. I don't think that solves the problem. I think to solve the problem we need to examine why people feel they need to exert physical force over everyone else.
I read somewhere the following (paraphrased):
"Out of fear comes anger, anger leads to violence."
Seems to make sense to me, I wonder what is going to escalate the situation more? One guy having a gun robbing me or we both having a gun?
By the time the gun is in my face the chance for me to draw mine without getting shot first (and let's face it if the guy has a gun he'll be nervous and WILL pull the trigger) is pretty much zero.
But fine, let's assume for a moment I have my gun out and we both have it at each others face, will that make him think twice? I doubt it.
Reality is that the gun gives you a false sense of security and power. Heck if someone wants to rob me and take my credit cards and cash go ahead, knock yourself out, I ain't gonna stop you.
If they didn't intend to rob me but do bodily harm it doesn't matter in the first place (see point one).
The problem is not if gun control is needed or not, the question is why is most of the US so scared that they THINK they need guns?
Someone wrote here that most people behave like bullies, I think he is right, and it also shows in the foreign policy the US has, never appear weak, make sure that nobody even gets the idea to mess with you. Hence SUV's, Guns and the "bigger is better" attiude.
Gun control isn't going to solve it, the only way this is going to solve is to get to the root of the problem and the chances for that I would guess are nil.
Just my 2 cents, feel free to proof me wrong.
M.
First you write:
.sig you're whoring for "friends"???
>>Truly a sad story. Remember people: games are for fun/entertainment, and are not real life. Same goes with Slashdot!
And then in your
M.
You forget:
Must use Windows (okay, that was sort of included in the IE remark).
I agree with your sentinment and I think it is very true.
BUT (you knew that was coming) when it comes to companies this DOES NOT apply anymore. Companies (by their own definition) exist to make money, as such they have to PAY money for services as well.
If you feel bad about this money take it and donate it (e.g. EFF) but I wouldn't give them my services for free anymore (I was in that situation in the past and I DID charge).
Still not convinced? Ask yourself this, if the situation would have been reversed, if HE needed something from the company (let's say health coverage because he got injured) would THEY have given it to him?
M.
When I moved lately I had a guy come out as they needed to "configure my pc".
I showed him to my Linux firewall, he was surprised about the prompt but figured it was just DOS (ha).
Put in the cd, realised it was not DOS, took the CD out, turned to me and said: "Well, I guess you know what you're doing." And left.
Offically my Cable Provider (Rogers) is not supporting Linux / Unix but if you have a technical issue just bug the Second Line support and 99% of the time you get the Unix guy who answers your questions.