Re: My new project (repost)
I agree with you 100%... I sat on a tech support line for 2 hours at a cost of $
35 for networking help in Windows 95. After all of that I ended up fixing the
configuration problem in my networking myself. They tried to convince me it
was my new 200 MMX processor and board that wasn't handling the communications w
ith the modem properly... Of course I knew better.
I want to let all of the new Linux users and future users that may be lurking in
this list... still sitting on the perverbial fence... deciding if Linux is righ
t for them; GO FOR IT! I have never seen such a dedicated group of unselfish peo
ple that ride these lists night and day helping all of us out of jams. I have wo
rked in tech support for a major company and I will attest to the fact that they
hire people who follow cheat sheets and have never touched a computer before. I
was over qualified and over paid in their eyes because I am a free thinker and
knowledgable. I always try new and challenging ways to correct problems. For tha
t I was fired.
I know that appreciation is not often shown because of the lack of personal cont
act on the net. A lot of body language is missing over this medium. I just want
to thank all of the gurus that have spent untold hours answering questions and n
ursing us along and developing tight bonds between the users, hackers and develo
pers. You guys are fantastic and we owe you a great deal. We may be scattered...
we may be volunteers... but we have shown that you don't have to be locked in a
lab to generate a fantastic and powerful operating system that is years in adva
nced of the rest.
On 04-Dec-97 Wintermute wrote:
>> Dear Debian Users,
>> [Quoting SCO] 1. Linux has no technical support or maintenance.
>> I am instituting a 24/7 commercial email support desk for
>Huzzah! The more commercial support the better.. It's strange, but
>corporations just don't think they're getting anything worth while
>unless they're paying through the nose for it.
>> [Quoting SCO] 2.Linux has no defined strategy for the future.
>As far as I understood it, Linux has always had an unspoken dedication
>to the users. To be the BEST operating system out there doesn't sound
>like too bad of a game plan to me. But I suppose it needs to be fluffed
>for management-sludge-brains to understand it more clearly.. or at least
>to point to and say in effect "This statement of purpose weighs more
>than any other I've ever seen.. this is definitely a good system."
>(Don't think I'm kidding either.. this is almost to the letter the way
>things are done.)
>> [Quoting SCO] 3.Most Important, can your company accept that its viability
>> as a business depends heavily on a freeware product maintained by a small
>> number of people on an essentially volunteer basis?
>First off, where do they get "small number"??! Now I KNOW this is a
>joke. Anyone have the last known official estimate for the sum total of
>The only difference between commercial support and volunteer support is
>that you can sue the pants off of someone who you've made a contract
>with if they fail to hold up their end.
>The fact remains.. if something does go wrong, either way the system's
>screwed, no amount of money you can pay can fix a problem. Only a
>strong team of skilled and knowledged individuals who understand the
>intrinsic details of the underlying system can solve the problem. What
>I'm trying to convey is that ..
>Just because you've payed for support doesn't solve the problem any
>faster or at all for that matter, and in the case of commercial support
>you'll be dealing with out-sourced technical assistance and you may not
>get to the original developers for weeks, even months (if at all).
>(Climbing up THAT chain of command can be a nightmare... and I speak
>from experience having had an INTERNAL vantage point on this.)
>I'll bet you any amount of money that the same is true for SCO. (In
>daily practice we've dealt with several of these problems.. all the
>same.. "Well we don't have support for that at this time.. perhaps
>later..." or "We're working on it right now..." Only to wait 4 months
>for vaporware...or vaporpatch as the case may be.)
>On a more productive note (shedding some of my rage at the audacity of
>SCO to publish such nonsense, and the fact that I HATE their BASTARD,
>BACKWARD OS with all my BEING.. eh hem). I would emphasize the fact
>that when requesting support for Linux, 9 out of 10 times (with a
>serious problem) you are getting help DIRECTLY from the developer
>responsible for that piece of the operating system, and not some hired
>warm-body who only knows what he's been taught in their (often
>inadequate) training courses.
>This list can attest to that fact. I requested assistance with my 3c509
>card, nothing was working. I contacted Donald Becker personaly, and I
>immediately got HELP. Within 24 hours I got a response with critical
>information that helped me find and solve my problem.
>Could I have gotten that with WinBlows 95 or NT? No. (Not without
>spending a fortune for Mission Critical assistance and then waiting 2
>weeks while they tripped over each other in their incompetancy.) And
>you're not going to find it in any other commercial Unix either. PERIOD.
>The difference? We CARE about our OS. The success of our Linux
>community rests on a devotion to something in which we believe and NOT
>because we're trying to turn a buck. If there's a problem with the
>system it's like a problem with our health, and immediate action is
>taken to cure the illness. Corporations like SCO would rather wait for
>the illness to become an epidemic before taking the first steps toward
>> [Quoting SCO] 4.Of course, there is a challenging aspect to Linux. Just
>> imagine all of the fun you get when you encounter a bug and debug the kernel
>This is an out and out insult. Their system is no different than any
>other. Say you find a problem with their kernel? What then? Call 'em
>up. Tell them your problem. Dick around for about a week or two until
>you finally drill into their skulls that you AREN'T a moron and that
>there is a REAL concern. Then wait a few MORE weeks while several
>lackies waste your time on telephone debugging sessions, until FINALLY
>it gets back to the man in charge of that particular piece o' kernel.
>With the Linux way we cut out about 3-4 weeks, a bottle of aspirin, and
>a mean case of cauliflower ear from being on the phone for hours on end.
>> Obviously, the commercial support organization I am forming will address
>Commercial support will prove that Linux is more than just a flash in
>the pan operation, and that we REALLY are serious about providing the
>BEST possible operating system available.
>But let's not forget Linus's "World Domination 101" directive.
>Applications, applications, applications! Perhaps some of this capitol
>accrued through commercial tech support could fund development projects
>to stock Linux with high quality business-ware that could loosen the
>grip of the Evil Empire on office productivity markets. We all KNOW
>that if we can get in THAT door, we've got 'em.
>> I think it's nice when a company takes their time to isolate all of your
>> problems and point them out so neatly so that you can work on them.
>> I reproduce the entirety of SCO's nice letter below.
>It sounds more like a company flailing and moaning in its final throws
>of death, but I agree with everything you've said.
>They've tried to step into OUR court now, and by doing so they've made a
>BIG mistake. The only thing that we really lack in order to impress
>corporations of the validity of Linux is true-blue commercial technical
>support. They need to feel comfortable knowing that if something goes
>wrong they have a contractual agreement which entitles them to immediate
>"level 1 priority" support. (I speak from experience.. I'm fighting a
>slow war with my company to prove to them that Linux is every bit as
>viable (if not more so) than Solaris, AIX, BSDi, etc, etc, etc.) With a
>commercial support option, I'd have a very large gun to fight with
>TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
>Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .
E-Mail: Keith Holler <email@example.com> ICQ: #5386440
/ / (_)__ __ ____ __
/ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / . . . t h e c h o i c e o f a
/____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ G N U g e n e r a t i o n . . .
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .