Re: [SLE] Installing 10.2 beta 1: read this BEFORE installing
On Wed, November 1, 2006 7:27 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Basil,
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 05:14, Basil Chupin wrote:
...
Last Sunday in our local 'paper there was the 'Dilbert' cartoon which I cannot but feel captures what may now be happening with SUSE. If not then it is just simply funny. Unfortunately this mail list doesn't accept attachments and I don't think it would be possible to insert the jpg image (I scanned the cartoon) into a message here. Pity. If you get a chance go to the Dilbert author's site - www.dilbert.com - and have a look at the cartoon dated 12/11/05.
I assume you're referring to Dec. 11, 2005.
Do you know how to see installments older than a month? I can't see back further than Oct 1, 2006.
Google to the rescue...
Check here: http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=12&month=11&year=2005 And is that what is happening at Novell? Are they trying the "outsourcing" joke with their executives? It still scares me - that the company who tried to shove Novell 4.x down our collective throats after the brilliance of 3.1x - is in charge of the future of SUSE. -- kai ponte www.perfectreign.com
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 20:15, Kai Ponte wrote:
On Wed, November 1, 2006 7:27 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Basil,
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 05:14, Basil Chupin wrote:
...
Last Sunday in our local 'paper there was the 'Dilbert' cartoon which I cannot but feel captures what may now be happening with SUSE. If not then it is just simply funny. Unfortunately this mail list doesn't accept attachments and I don't think it would be possible to insert the jpg image (I scanned the cartoon) into a message here. Pity. If you get a chance go to the Dilbert author's site - www.dilbert.com - and have a look at the cartoon dated 12/11/05.
I assume you're referring to Dec. 11, 2005.
Do you know how to see installments older than a month? I can't see back further than Oct 1, 2006.
Google to the rescue...
Check here:
http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=12&month=11&year=20 05
Given the context, and the fact that outsourcing isn't a big topic at Novell, I suspect he meant http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=11&month=12&year=2005 but I'm not sure why. The release cycle hasn't been shortened, it's been lengthened. It's now longer than it ever was (it used to be 4, then 6, before the takeover) I also really, totally fail to see the connection with my request for Basil to report his bug in bugzilla
into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Wednesday 01 November 2006 2:47 pm, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 20:15, Kai Ponte wrote:
On Wed, November 1, 2006 7:27 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Basil,
<snip> Given the context, and the fact that outsourcing isn't a big topic at Novell, I suspect he meant
http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=11&month=12&yea r=2005
but I'm not sure why. The release cycle hasn't been shortened, it's been lengthened. It's now longer than it ever was (it used to be 4, then 6, before the takeover)
I also really, totally fail to see the connection with my request for Basil to report his bug in bugzilla
m'lord Anders, It's that stretched release cycle.. most of us have stable releases and there is little to bitch about.. time for our usual between release OT chatter would be my guess. ;) Blondely, -- j You wrote a note with chalk on my door. A message I'd known long before: On any given day, you'll find me gone
Kai Ponte wrote:
And is that what is happening at Novell? Are they trying the "outsourcing" joke with their executives?
It still scares me - that the company who tried to shove Novell 4.x down our collective throats after the brilliance of 3.1x - is in charge of the future of SUSE.
Well, Novell Netware 5.x wasn't nearly as bad as 4.x. (^-^) Sandy -- List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 11:48, Sandy Drobic wrote:
Kai Ponte wrote:
And is that what is happening at Novell? Are they trying the "outsourcing" joke with their executives?
It still scares me - that the company who tried to shove Novell 4.x down our collective throats after the brilliance of 3.1x - is in charge of the future of SUSE.
Well, Novell Netware 5.x wasn't nearly as bad as 4.x. (^-^)
I don't intend to say 4.x was "bad" or "good," just that it was not the right product for the time. Unfortunately, whether subsequent versions of Novell were good or bad became irrelevant due to the changing of the landscape after Novell failed to follow up on the success of the 3.x version. VARs like me and Consultants were faced with a simple choice with 4.x and NT. Either install workgroup servers with NT and have the Windows 3.x/95/WFW/NTWS and OS/2 clients auto-connect or be required to install the very expensive (by comparison) Novell 4.x Server product and then spend time at each workstation configuring a client software. Keep in mind, that most companies had a mix of 386, 486 and Pentium workstations - with many different NICs. It was just less headache to simply go with the default NetBIOS client that shipped with WFW, 95, NTWS, or OS/2. By the time Novell 5 came out, the world had moved on. I've never even touched the product. I just hope the same arrogance and short-sighted vision doesn't plague SUSE now and in the future. I really like this software and currently advocate it over other *nix distros. Screwing up 10.1 with the pre-release Zen updater was somewhat forgivable because we users expected bleeding-edge product and could fall back on SMART or APT-GET or something else. I certainly hope they don't make such a mistake with any of the Novell Desktop products. -- kai ponte www.perfectreign.com
Kai Ponte wrote:
Either install workgroup servers with NT and have the Windows 3.x/95/WFW/NTWS and OS/2 clients auto-connect or be required to install the very expensive (by comparison) Novell 4.x Server product and then spend time at each workstation configuring a client software. Keep in mind, that most companies had a mix of 386, 486 and Pentium workstations - with many different NICs. It was just less headache to simply go with the default NetBIOS client that shipped with WFW, 95, NTWS, or OS/2.
By the time Novell 5 came out, the world had moved on. I've never even touched the product.
Well, I am a Netware 5 CNE, so I did "touch" it. (^-^) Though it is true that Netware 5 was already sinking fast and with the appearance of Windows 2000 Server quickly lost appeal. Featurewise it really wasn't a bad product, but I guess that you indeed almost had to be a CNE to configure even the basic server functions in Netware 5. Added with the rather specialised and proprietary software you get an isolated product. Changing the kernel to linux and sell the directory as a standalone solution wasn't a bad decision.
I just hope the same arrogance and short-sighted vision doesn't plague SUSE now and in the future. I really like this software and currently advocate it over other *nix distros. Screwing up 10.1 with the pre-release Zen updater was somewhat forgivable because we users expected bleeding-edge product and could fall back on SMART or APT-GET or something else. I certainly hope they don't make such a mistake with any of the Novell Desktop products.
I don't think they earn much money with desktop solutions. Most of the money is probably coming from SLES subscriptions and server solutions. So I don't believe they are putting special attention to desktop products. An exception might be solutions for the what-was-the-name-again... Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop, if I read the Novell's homepage right. Though I don't think that they will repeat the update and software management desaster in the following version again. One buggy version can be forgiven, if they release two consecutive versions with major bugs in important functions they will lose too much credibility. Sandy -- List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 14:24, Sandy Drobic wrote:
Kai Ponte wrote:
Either install workgroup servers with NT and have the Windows 3.x/95/WFW/NTWS and OS/2 clients auto-connect or be required to install the very expensive (by comparison) Novell 4.x Server product and then spend time at each workstation configuring a client software. Keep in mind, that most companies had a mix of 386, 486 and Pentium workstations - with many different NICs. It was just less headache to simply go with the default NetBIOS client that shipped with WFW, 95, NTWS, or OS/2.
By the time Novell 5 came out, the world had moved on. I've never even touched the product.
Well, I am a Netware 5 CNE, so I did "touch" it. (^-^)
Good to see a few of you still out there. Except for what I've written about the config issues, I still believe that NW is/was a superior product for workgroups and enterprise networks than LanMan (a.k.a. NT) and the still-developing AD concept. I find it funny - my organization (96,000 users) is putting in AD. The concepts being tossed about are ones I remember some of my more highly evolved NT 4x and 5x clients discussing in the late '90s. Again, it was a better product but poorly marketed and integrated for us VARs.
Though it is true that Netware 5 was already sinking fast and with the appearance of Windows 2000 Server quickly lost appeal. Featurewise it really wasn't a bad product, but I guess that you indeed almost had to be a CNE to configure even the basic server functions in Netware 5.
That's what I've heard.
Added with the rather specialised and proprietary software you get an isolated product. Changing the kernel to linux and sell the directory as a standalone solution wasn't a bad decision.
I just hope the same arrogance and short-sighted vision doesn't plague SUSE now and in the future. I really like this software and currently advocate it over other *nix distros. Screwing up 10.1 with the pre-release Zen updater was somewhat forgivable because we users expected bleeding-edge product and could fall back on SMART or APT-GET or something else. I certainly hope they don't make such a mistake with any of the Novell Desktop products.
I don't think they earn much money with desktop solutions. Most of the money is probably coming from SLES subscriptions and server solutions. So I don't believe they are putting special attention to desktop products. An exception might be solutions for the what-was-the-name-again... Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop, if I read the Novell's homepage right.
Well, I hope that they don't ignore the desktop. That's how MS rose, in my opinion. They focused on the desktop experience and then zeroed in on the servers. Fortunately they never gained full dominance in the server arena. Even my last employer had a dozen or so SLE servers among the menagare of NT/2K/2K3, OS/2, AIX, HPUX and ZOS servers. I just wanted to get more SUSE clients going. :)
Though I don't think that they will repeat the update and software management desaster in the following version again. One buggy version can be forgiven, if they release two consecutive versions with major bugs in important functions they will lose too much credibility.
Subscribe! -- kai ponte www.perfectreign.com
Kai Ponte wrote:
On Wed, November 1, 2006 7:27 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Basil,
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 05:14, Basil Chupin wrote:
...
Last Sunday in our local 'paper there was the 'Dilbert' cartoon which I cannot but feel captures what may now be happening with SUSE. If not then it is just simply funny. Unfortunately this mail list doesn't accept attachments and I don't think it would be possible to insert the jpg image (I scanned the cartoon) into a message here. Pity. If you get a chance go to the Dilbert author's site - www.dilbert.com - and have a look at the cartoon dated 12/11/05. I assume you're referring to Dec. 11, 2005.
Do you know how to see installments older than a month? I can't see back further than Oct 1, 2006.
Google to the rescue...
Check here: http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=12&month=11&year=2005
Aha! I didn't know that this archive existed! Thanks for finding this archive. Well done. The one I am talking about is this one: http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=11&month=12&year=2005 (To save me the trouble of replying to earlier postings concerning the format of dates: I am well aware of the confusion caused by the american practice of putting the month before the date. The date of the cartoon is shown as "12-11-05" and being an American cartoon but published here in Australia (which would have the date shown as "11-12-05") I didn't know which was the proper date- so I simply left it as shown in the cartoon. As it turns out, the date is in the American format.) Cheers. -- "They misunderestimated me." George W. Bush 6 November 2000
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 19:35, Basil Chupin wrote:
Kai Ponte wrote: http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=11&month=12&year=20 05
(To save me the trouble of replying to earlier postings concerning the format of dates:
I am well aware of the confusion caused by the american practice of putting the month before the date. The date of the cartoon is shown as "12-11-05" and being an American cartoon but published here in Australia (which would have the date shown as "11-12-05") I didn't know which was the proper date- so I simply left it as shown in the cartoon. As it turns out, the date is in the American format.)
This should probably be OT, but don't most people who use the dd mm yy practice use dot notation? I remember seeing that often. To use your example, the date would be written as 11.12.05, is that not correct? I'm curious also if we Californians (and other US peeps) are the only ones still using the mm-dd-yy format for dates. Oh well, off to bed... -- kai ponte www.perfectreign.com
Kai Ponte wrote:
On Wednesday 01 November 2006 19:35, Basil Chupin wrote:
Kai Ponte wrote: http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=11&month=12&year=20 05
(To save me the trouble of replying to earlier postings concerning the format of dates:
I am well aware of the confusion caused by the american practice of putting the month before the date. The date of the cartoon is shown as "12-11-05" and being an American cartoon but published here in Australia (which would have the date shown as "11-12-05") I didn't know which was the proper date- so I simply left it as shown in the cartoon. As it turns out, the date is in the American format.)
This should probably be OT, but don't most people who use the dd mm yy practice use dot notation? I remember seeing that often. To use your example, the date would be written as 11.12.05, is that not correct?
No, we would normally show it as 11/12/06.
I'm curious also if we Californians (and other US peeps) are the only ones still using the mm-dd-yy format for dates.
The Canadians as well I suspect. Cheers. -- When the going gets tough, the tough get SUSE.
participants (5)
-
Anders Johansson -
Basil Chupin -
jfweber＠gilweber.com -
Kai Ponte -
Sandy Drobic