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

[Ian O'Connell]

On 22/06/07, Gavin McCullagh <gmccullagh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Ian O'Connell wrote:
>
> > On 22/06/07, Gavin McCullagh <gmccullagh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Actually, I don't think I've ever heard anyone called a Microsoft
> > >zealot, the word zealot only seems to get used in the other direction.
> > >Perhaps it's only deserved by linux people?
> >
> > Honistly, yeah generally it is linux people who deserve it.
>
> I wasn't being sarcastic.  I think it probably does mostly have more
> meaning for linux users.

wooops, sorry assumed you were.....

>
> > so you'd start argue'n the merits of linux with an install technician who
> > just wants the thing to be setup so he can move onto his next job/goto
> > lunch?
>
> No.  I'd present what I had (probably linux), do my best to help him with
> it and let him bring a laptop if he really needs windows.  I wouldn't argue
> anything.

well thats fair enough, but i just don't see the need of all that if
you just have a BE or small partition left over.
> > >Why would an ISP ever consider investing the slightest time on any other
> > >operating system or avoid creating a dependency on windows if experience
> > >shows them that "everyone always has windows anyway".
>
> > Huh? you presume the ISP's have a dependency, anyone on this list will
> > tell you they don't.
>
> Thanks for the tip.  I'm not saying that there is a dependency.  I'm
> suggesting that if an ISP decided to inadvertently introduce one, let's say
> a modem or router which can only be configured or debugged using a native
> windows application, their engineers might think for a moment and say "we
> do get some non-windows people, they'll not be able to use this".  If
> everyone has windows in their experience, that's never going to happen.

i dunno, if you recall when winmodems were first released sales for
pc's didn't drop through the floor, public outrage or well anything.
linux users arn't a big enough % of any user base such that if its
significantly cheaper to move to an alternative that might upset them
an isp or well any company will go there.
>
> > Their customers are the ones who like windows and use it everywhere.
>
> Not all of them and keeping them aware of this is useful.  I don't expect
> you to do it, but I generally choose to.  I've never had an argument in
> doing it.

I have, twice, installer guy got amazingly thick over the fact the
machines around were linux, maybe they were just having a bad day.....

>
> > So why bother spending money to train technicians on an OS which is used
> > by a negligble fraction of your customer base?  if you ever had a support
> > issue and got through to an engineer they probably have a few unix heads
> > lie'n about in any isp, but you won't find those on the support phones.
>
> I don't expect them to be trained on linux.  I do expect them to have basic
> networking knowledge and with some help from me we should be able to get
> things working.  We were previously talking about an on-site engineer, not
> phone support.  That said, I have spoken to UTV's phone support guys and
> talked to them about networking issues, mentioning that I use linux but I
> would deal with that end of things.  You do get a "well we don't really
> support..." which I completely understand, then we've moved on and fixed
> things.

on-site installation technician vs an engineer i'd consider pretty
different. But regardless mixed bag of success in dealing with this
under linux calls. No hassle under windows, i've better things to be
doing than translating what i see on my linux machine into the
appearance of what it would be under windows or anything else. if i
think its their fault i'll let thim fill out their form so we can both
get onto other things as fast as possible, if that means point clicky
a things in windows then fine....

>
> > Fortunate for you then, the NTL modems are just ethernet to coax
> > bridges, they don't require any configuring at all(they read configs
> > off the network, nothing is really available client side). Buuut, the
> > NTL engineer wanted to go off and do his thing, so windows laptop to
> > the rescue again.
>
> No, he used my linux desktop.  He needed a web browser.  He appeared to
> login to a webpage on an rfc1918 address which I presumed to be on the
> modem (as it was not online yet at the time) but I could be wrong on that.
> As it didn't work immediately, he wrote down a handful of instructions and
> left me to complete them.

aye its normally what 192.168.100.1 iirc for the ntl modems, they just
have a look to see if the network address has been accepted and the
modem configured.

>
> > That they do, but 2 i've delt with were a bit confused when they saw
> > linux on a screen, if your paying for an installation they want to go
> > off and configure network settings(horribly as they did it) and such,
> > windows laptop lie'n around covered that for me.
>
> Your choice.  I would choose to help him through the brief slight
> confusion.  These guys are really not as stupid as you think.

I never said they were stupid, but providing them a comfert level
regarding the os they are working in hasn't ever done me any harm.
Those that i have had to deal with linux with have been a mixed bag,
windows 100% hassle free......

if i give him a linux box i'd have to hand hold him regardless to be
able to do stuff, if i give him a windows one i can get back to my own
work and he'll sort himself out.

> > No but even a NAT alone is enough protection for you to turn on an
> > archaic windows install and goto the ms update site and patch it.
>
> I was trying to get the connection above 10kbps at the time and a NAT would
> actually have blocked me from doing the debugging.  I didn't like the fact
> that IBB required me to have windows for that but to be fair, they did
> actually have a linux version of the software and thought they had it
> covered.  It just didn't work too well.  I let them know on the phone that
> their linux debugging software required very old version of linux.  I don't
> expect them to change it now, but at least they're aware of the issue.
>
> > While you have a valid point, and for most 'windows' style users it
> > would be a big issue... but i dunno i'd have hoped anyone who decided
> > that they wanted to spend their life in linux would have the common
> > sence to update their windows if they run it.
>
> FFS!  The whole point is that we don't run it.  You're advocating that we
> all keep a 2-5GB windows install just in case.  Do we now have to reboot
> into it on a regular basis to make sure it's up-to-date too?  Just in case
> we need windows some day so as not to see a confused look on the face of an
> ISP engineer who needs a web browser?
I dunno maybe i'm more nerdy than most, but my storage at home is in
the TB's, 5 - 10gigs on one machine with windows incase i need it
isn't exactly putting me out. And no i never said you should reboot
into it regularly and update it, just when you do run it updating it
would of course be prudent.

>
> I'm NOT a linux zealot (perhaps you disagree?).
No i wouldn't think you are, well formed points and all that...


>  I've used windows and I
> still do when I have to.  In general I don't tell people not to use
> windows.  But I'm ****ed if I'm going to run it and keep it up-to-date so
> some engineer I pay to come round can set up my DSL connection using IE
> instead of firefox on my computer.  In my experience, these engineers are
> not as stupid as you make out.  You can't expect them to know linux, but
> that's okay.

They arn't stupid, they just haven't largely used linux. I just don't
see the need to unneccearily force them to use it. To each there own
but for the sake of 1 - 5 gig, or a cdrom i just don't see the point
of throwing something out you've paid for.

-- 


Ian.