[ILUG] Naive ADSL/WiFi questions (long (sorry!))?

[Ian O'Connell]

On 22/06/07, John Madden <john+ilug at jmadden.eu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On (22/06/07 11:02), Ian O'Connell said:
> > >> Despite the extreme unpopularity of Tim's view, for the average
> > >> scenario he's quite correct, and in all my systems which came
> > >> pre-installed with windows that partition is re-sized down and left
> > >> alone.
> > >
> > >There are at least a few list members who have no use for windows and
> > >use some flavour of Unix. Not out of zealotry, but because of
> > >preference, habit, employment and other such sensible reasons.
> >
> > A use for windows is irrelevent. if the machine came with windows
> > there is no sensible reason to just delete it unless you've several
> > machines to hand.
> >
> So, what do the engineers do when they go to do an install in a
> completely non-Windows house or business? Eg., if they were to come to
> my house to install something, they'd have a choice of Mac OSX, Ubuntu
> or Debian (deliberately omitting my partner's Vista laptop here for
> illustrative purposes).

He'll plod about i imagine, give you the settings and leave.....

> > >> Whether its right or not is irrelevant, 99% of the worlds pc
> > >> computers are running windows, when it comes to on site technicians
> > >> or dealing with phone support regarding hardware faults its only
> > >> sensible if the machine came with windows then keep it about and
> > >> don't go causing agro that benefits no one......
> > >
> > >So what are you suggesting exactly?
> > >
> > >That all non-windows users must keep a windows partition around?
> >
> > on one of their machines to hand yes, i don't see why not. you've
> > already paid for it in the purchase.
> >
> This is utter bullsh*t, and is the reason so many hardware manufacturers
> have encumbered us (us == those of us with _no_ requirement or wish to
> have Windows) with the extra cost of a Windows licence on top of the
> hardware.

Yes, i never said i agreed with it, but its just the way it is. If
your forced to pay for something i damn sure try get some use out of
it.

>
> > If an installer comes onsite and wants to configure a windows machine
> > to use service or do x y z, and wants windows, i'll let him off
> > configure and get the windows working. Thats fine, it'll test the
> > networking aspect by doing it. I can come back later with no hassle
> > and port any settings to linux and go back to not using windows. I
> > don't need for him to leave early cause he doesn't know what he's
> > doing to just discover that there is some problem out of my control
> > but he's now gone since he couldn't test it.....
> >
> If he wants to configure it, he can leave the settings with me and I'll
> configure my own choice of OS if he can't. If he wants to test it, then
> he should have the relevant equipment necessary to test it with him, and
> not be dependant on me for it.

True and thats all well and good, and if it doesn't work? you've to
wait for another engineer to come out... i just don't see the point in
the extra hassle if you don't need to. (and in your case he might be
able to use os x regardless).
>
> > >The desire that it continue to remain possible to have a choice in
> > >what OS to run is not zealotry.
> >
> > No but you seem to be suggesting one should limit ones choices not
> > increase them. Having windows and linux does not limit your choices...
> > Tim can refresh me here its a year since i finished but 1 + 1 = 2
> > right which is > 1?
> >
> Nobody is saying someone should limit their choices, but those of us who
> choose not to keep Windows around, or who don't have it to keep around
> in the first place, should not be required to have it to configure or
> use a particular service. And if said service cannot be done with your
> choice of OS, then vote with your wallet and look elsewhere for a
> similar service that can.

Thats all some great idealism and what not, but given the
inconvenience of leaving a pre-installed os alone isn't huge, or even
making the the bart BE, i don't see why its a great plan to delete it?
I'm all for your view of voting with wallets to a service provider
that supports all oses, but that just isn't always possible. if your
forced to pay the windows tax you might aswell head off future
potential hassle. i just don't see this need to drive for a windows
free household?

>
> > >Your view however is a sort of awful, false pragmatism. One which
> > >would eventually lead to a situation that only zealots could agree is
> > >desireable: a monoculture. Ironic.
> >
> > Huh what now? a monoculture? not deleting something you paid for
> > incase you need it some day is a form of being a zealot?
> >
> I think what he means here is that you'll enforce the Windows
> monoculture that most businesses focus on. Your choice of OS is your own
> obviously, but you shouldn't be forced into having to keep one around
> just to keep service providers happy.

shouldn't, but its the nature of the world. I don't run windows on
those machines every day, some i've never ran it on since the day i
got them. But its not exactly put me out for there to be an extra
option in the grub boot loader.....

and since dell has been mentioned came across a painfull senario with
a powervault a few months baack where we'd to move the scsi card, and
connect the PV to a windows machine since you couldn't update its bios
under anything but windows , or a specific version of linux. (machine
runs freebsd, nfs server). Painfull, but its the way it is.........


-- 


Ian.