- WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Re: [Wlug] Ubuntu switch user & screen lock

by Kristian Hermansen

On 6/18/07, Bill Mills-Curran <bill(a)mills-curran.net> wrote: > I've recently used the "switch user" option to log in without logging > my son out. However, after logging out of my account, the screen is > locked for my son, and his login password will not unlock the screen. > > Anyone else seen this? I think I have seen this, but only if you are utilizing "Desktop Effects" and a closed-source binary driver. Is this the case? -- Kristian Hermansen

June 20, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by albutler33＠netscape.net

Re: Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters problem Andy, b) Any recruiter who abuses the list by failing to ask permission prior to posting, or by an excessive volume of emails, will be asked to stop (including removal from the membership list if necessary). How would you define excessive? Al Butler -----Original Message----- From: wlug-request(a)mail.wlug.org To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Sent: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:19 am Subject: Wlug Digest, Vol 44, Issue 10 Send Wlug mailing list submissions to wlug(a)mail.wlug.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to wlug-request(a)mail.wlug.org You can reach the person managing the list at wlug-owner(a)mail.wlug.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Wlug digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA (Tal Cohen) 2. Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters (Andy Stewart) 3. Re: Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters (Andy Stewart) 4. Re: Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters (Chuck Anderson) 5. Re: JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA (Mark Richards) 6. Re: Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters (Andy Stewart) 7. Re: Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters (Mike Leo) 8. Re: Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters (Andy Stewart) 9. Re: JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA (Keith Wright) Attached Message From: Tal Cohen <wlug(a)cohen123.com> To: 'Jamie Guinan' <guinan(a)bluebutton.com>; 'Worcester Linux Users Group' <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> Subject: Re: [Wlug] JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:12:46 -0400 So, here is a question: What are the guidelines for posting a relevant job opening to this group? My reason for asking is because the company that I work for is about to open a few reqs, and I want to get the bounty :) Seriously (although I do want the bounty), the positions will be appropriate for the group. Thanks, Tal -----Original Message----- From: wlug-bounces(a)mail.wlug.org [mailto:wlug-bounces@mail.wlug.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Guinan Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 4:59 PM To: Worcester Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [Wlug] JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA > The information transmitted in this email is intended only for the person(s= > ) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or pr= > ivileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use o= > f, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or= > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received = > this email in error, please contact the sender and permanently delete the e= > mail from any computer. Delete the email... from *any* computer? "Pardon me Fred, I need to borrow your PC for a few minutes..." -Jamie _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug Attached Message From: Andy Stewart <andystewart(a)comcast.net> To: Worcester Linux Users Group <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> Subject: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:00:53 -0400 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 HI gang, Tal Cohen wrote: > So, here is a question: What are the guidelines for > posting a relevant job > opening to this group? This is a very good question! In general, I personally frown upon random recruiters posting job openings on the WLUG mailing list, especially when they don't have the courtesy of asking permission. Having the list as writable only by list members helps to keep this type of email traffic minimized. However, there have been a couple of recruiters in the past who asked permission prior to posting, which I did grant (John Spencer is one such individual). I specifically asked John to preface his subject with "JOB" or "JOBS" so people could filter accordingly, and he has done what was asked. Also, John's posts have been very Linux relevant IMHO. In the interest of fair disclosure, I've worked with John in the past and my employer has hired people represented by him. I have also had recruiters send the job posting to me, asking me to forward it to the list. If relevant, I forward the post, but sometimes I have deleted them if I thought they were not relevant. Having said all of that, I recognize that this mailing list belongs to all of us and not just to me. At any time, we as a group can choose to change our policy. Admittedly, even if every recruiter who posted asked permission and used the "JOB" subject, the volume of email could become more than we'd like. To date, this has not happened. I have not yet heard anybody complain about a group member posting a relevant job opening for their employer. In today's particular case, I suspect that if the recruiter were informed of our policy, he would be happy to comply. Although it is our email list, how we react on the list is a reflection of the group as a whole. In summary, I propose the following for your consideration: a) Recruiters who wish to post to the WLUG mailing list need to request permission to do so, and if granted, preface the subject with "JOB" so people can filter accordingly. As acting president, I presume that the permission would be granted by me. b) Any recruiter who abuses the list by failing to ask permission prior to posting, or by an excessive volume of emails, will be asked to stop (including removal from the membership list if necessary). c) Group members may post relevant job openings as long as they preface the subject with "JOB". I invite constructive discussion on the proposal, and counter proposals if appropriate. Thanks, Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group (http://www.wlug.org) Chelmsford Linux Meetup Group (http://linux.meetup.com/393) Amateur Radio: KB1OIQ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdxy1Hl0iXDssISsRAuEzAJ9BjH5OEKb2KczS2uST4Y1F4p0VSACcDbNf SShrPI1odk0K9WH68GLiSBA= =jOVI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Attached Message From: Andy Stewart <andystewart(a)comcast.net> To: Worcester Linux Users Group <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> Subject: Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:23:39 -0400 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andy Stewart wrote: > In summary, I propose the following for your consideration: > > a) Recruiters who wish to post to the WLUG mailing list need to request > permission to do so, and if granted, preface the subject with "JOB" so > people can filter accordingly. As acting president, I presume that the > permission would be granted by me. I just thought of something. When a person who is not a list member attempts to post a message to the group, the email is sent to the list moderator for approval. This is currently Frank Sweetser (and I think Chuck Anderson, also). In the event that a recruiter attempts to post without first becoming a group member, I have full trust in the list moderator's judgment to implement our group policy. Later, Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group (http://www.wlug.org) Chelmsford Linux Meetup Group (http://linux.meetup.com/393) Amateur Radio: KB1OIQ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdyILHl0iXDssISsRAgNmAJsGz/nTV+HCanWwh3V/ZZQ38r7M/QCfZXtD GuE/sWwnwCdq4pIDU7/k4LQ= =UUDG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Attached Message From: Chuck Anderson <cra(a)WPI.EDU> To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:25:44 -0400 On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:23:39PM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: > In the event that a recruiter attempts to post without first becoming a > group member, I have full trust in the list moderator's judgment to > implement our group policy. The problem in this case was that the user subscribed to the list, and then immediately sent the JOB posting. So he was already a "group member". Attached Message From: Mark Richards <mark.richards(a)massmicro.com> To: Worcester Linux Users Group <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> Subject: Re: [Wlug] JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:13:04 -0400 Tal Cohen wrote:? > So, here is a question: What are the guidelines for posting a relevant job? > opening to this group? My guess is that policy need not be set if participants would exercise basic courtesy: ask first.? ? You did that. Good show.? ? /m? ? ? Attached Message From: Andy Stewart <andystewart(a)comcast.net> To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:42:22 -0400 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:23:39PM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: >> In the event that a recruiter attempts to post without first becoming a >> group member, I have full trust in the list moderator's judgment to >> implement our group policy. > > The problem in this case was that the user subscribed to the list, and > then immediately sent the JOB posting. So he was already a "group > member". Yes, and I have a couple of thoughts on that. 1) I believe this is the first time a recruiter has done this, but I could be wrong. 2) We as a group have every right to determine what is acceptable email on the list. In my opinion, if any group member abuses the list, they should be first asked to stop and then have their privileges revoked if they continue to abuse the list. The post did mention Linux, it did have "JOB" in the subject, however, the recruiter did not ask permission to use our list. Is that sufficient cause for immediate revocation from the list? Perhaps so, perhaps not - you tell me. I don't recall anybody asking this particular recruiter to stop doing what he did. We should revoke with care. If done harshly, it could damage the group reputation. 3) I opened the topic for discussion because I want to be sure that folks who are normally less vocal on the group mailing list have a chance to air their opinions. 4) The end result of these discussions should be posted on the website as a group policy so guests to our mailing list will understand what we expect of them. Thanks, Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group (http://www.wlug.org) Chelmsford Linux Meetup Group (http://linux.meetup.com/393) Amateur Radio: KB1OIQ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdyZuHl0iXDssISsRAqF1AJwKnQMShnVbgX0A1x5ebbL3pUcESACfTn0H pQOtgCZU7i/Zbd/muSg7r20= =2oDQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Attached Message From: Mike Leo <mleo963(a)yahoo.com> To: Worcester Linux Users Group <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> Subject: Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:43:58 -0700 (PDT) Does a job posting really warrant this much discussion? I know I haven't participated much lately, but the emails discussing the spam job posting have been more spam-like than the original possible spam posting. spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggsspam. Anyway, I also posted a job posting earlier today.? Hope I did not break the rules. Mike ----- Original Message ---- From: Chuck Anderson <cra(a)WPI.EDU> To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 8:25:44 PM Subject: Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:23:39PM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: > In the event that a recruiter attempts to post without first becoming a > group member, I have full trust in the list moderator's judgment to > implement our group policy. The problem in this case was that the user subscribed to the list, and then immediately sent the JOB posting.??So he was already a "group member". _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug Attached Message From: Andy Stewart <andystewart(a)comcast.net> To: Worcester Linux Users Group <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> Subject: Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:51:44 -0400 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mike Leo wrote: > Does a job posting really warrant this much discussion? Hi Mike, Normally, no, but this subject has come up before, and I'd like to settle it. > > I know I haven't participated much lately, but the emails discussing the > spam job posting have been more spam-like than the original possible > spam posting. > > spamspamspamspamspamspamspameggsspam. > > Anyway, I also posted a job posting earlier today. Hope I did not break > the rules. I had no problem with your post. Later, Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group (http://www.wlug.org) Chelmsford Linux Meetup Group (http://linux.meetup.com/393) Amateur Radio: KB1OIQ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGdyigHl0iXDssISsRAjjaAJ4hUy5DyPm+W+KMaIlIPZGWFgCWKQCeKB0N jLDlWHyrQIYtUo2Cz8+qMn8= =WdEA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Attached Message From: Keith Wright <kwright(a)keithdiane.us> To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org Subject: Re: [Wlug] JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:12:08 -0400 > From: "Tal Cohen" <wlug(a)cohen123.com> > > What are the guidelines for posting > a relevant job opening to this group? Don't be a lamer. I am tempted to leave it there. True Lamers will never know who they are, but here are some guides to How To Be A Lamer. 1. Never come to a meeting. 2. Subscribe to the list for the sole purpose of posting your advertisement. 3. Fail the Turing Test by using cliches to indicate that your message was auto-generated by a computer or marketing manager. 4. Do not write any introductory remarks that might show your message is intended for the WLUG list, rather than every list in known space. There are, of course, many other possible lame actions. Note that I have no actual power over any list messages other than my own, and so my opinions are worthless except in so far as others agree with them. -- Keith _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug ________________________________________________________________________ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Jamie Guinan

My $0.02... I think the mailing list should be like the meetings - if someone at a meeting says "hey, $COMPANY has this opening doing Linux sysadmin/programming/etc.", great. But if some random recruiter walks into the room without any introductions and starts blabbing about jobs and how great his company is, I imagine they'd be told where to go. In any case (and to kick a dead horse from a few months ago), I think all job postings should be open to satire. If you're a recruiter and you post something that looks like an obvious death march[1], be prepared to have the euphemistic recruiter-speak appropriatly analyzed and made fun of. >:) -Jamie [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march_(software_development)

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Brian Waite

On Tuesday 19 June 2007, Bill Mills-Curran wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:42:22PM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: > <snip> > > > 3) I opened the topic for discussion because I want to be sure that > > folks who are normally less vocal on the group mailing list have a > > chance to air their opinions. > > > > 4) The end result of these discussions should be posted on the website > > as a group policy so guests to our mailing list will understand what we > > expect of them. > > > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug A thought, the internet is a self righting economy. I am not saying blast people with spambots, but I think it is perfectly fair for everyone not interested in the jobs posted politely respond with a poilte "Not interested" email. A person who subscribes to this list for the sole purpose of send a job req, thinks that it is not rude, well it must not be rude to reply. A policy that keeps the people who want to go good and right on the right side of the list is a good thing. Personally, I don't mind job posting here, as long as they don't flood the list. Just as people on the phone in line at the grocery store don't think it is rude to be yelling in my ear, should not think it rude when I talk to the person behind them in the line. I don't think a 'No thanks' reply from everyone who was interrupted on this list is rude. Just my grumpy overtired 2 cents Thanks Brian

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Michelle Vadeboncoeur

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Frank Sweetser wrote: FS>the noise of recruiters. If this comes up much more, I 'd vote for FS>either relegating job postings to a dedicated page on the web site, or FS>just banning them alltogether, depending on how the rest of the group FS>feels. There is another similar option: ban all job postings to the wlug list, but make a separate wlug-jobs jobs list where it is appropriate to post job openings. If someone is indeed interested in looking at job postings, they can subscribe to the separate list. As for the job posting that started this thread, I have to mention that proofreading (not relying on spellcheck) should be suggested as another skill that the recruiter needs: "Born and bread in Baltimore"

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Clint Moyer

I don't feel there's a need to ban job postings altogether. Andy's method seems more than reasonable, though I'd suggest that ANY such posting get the go-ahead from Andy or Frank regardless of the poster's tenure here. I can't think of a reason why such a requirement would be objectionable to anyone. Clint ---- Frank Sweetser <fs(a)WPI.EDU> wrote: ============= My thoughts on the whole incident revolve around the fact that more than anything else, WLUG - including the mailing list - is a community explicitly defined as a place where linux enthusiasts can get together. The whole topic of job postings is already a little bit of a grey area, but so far they'd all been either posted directly by people in WLUG, or sent to Andy and relayed to the list. This has worked at least well enough that nobody complained. In this case, however, things went differently. The user quite obviously went through the trouble of signing up for the mailing list with the sole purpose of being able to send an email that was part job posting and part recruiter advertisement. This, in my mind (and quite a few others, based on the responses) crossed over the line. There are plenty of well established sites online for employers and employees to look for each other, and I doubt that anyone in this group would have any trouble finding them. So far it hasn't been an issue, but I would hate to see the signal in the mailing list get diluted with the noise of recruiters. If this comes up much more, I 'd vote for either relegating job postings to a dedicated page on the web site, or just banning them alltogether, depending on how the rest of the group feels. Your humble list moderator, Frank _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA

by Aaron Haviland

Keith Wright wrote, on Jun 19, 2007 at 00:12 EDT: > I am tempted to leave it there. True Lamers > will never know who they are, but here are > some guides to How To Be A Lamer. > > 1. Never come to a meeting. > 2. Subscribe to the list for the sole > purpose of posting your advertisement. > 3. Fail the Turing Test by using cliches > to indicate that your message was > auto-generated by a computer or marketing > manager. > 4. Do not write any introductory remarks > that might show your message is intended > for the WLUG list, rather than every list > in known space. Gee, Keith, I hope this isn't an OR list. I'm never able to make a meeting as I work evenings! -- Aaron Haviland 34 Wayne Ave, Dudley, MA home: [508] 943 - 7974

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Frank Sweetser

My thoughts on the whole incident revolve around the fact that more than anything else, WLUG - including the mailing list - is a community explicitly defined as a place where linux enthusiasts can get together. The whole topic of job postings is already a little bit of a grey area, but so far they'd all been either posted directly by people in WLUG, or sent to Andy and relayed to the list. This has worked at least well enough that nobody complained. In this case, however, things went differently. The user quite obviously went through the trouble of signing up for the mailing list with the sole purpose of being able to send an email that was part job posting and part recruiter advertisement. This, in my mind (and quite a few others, based on the responses) crossed over the line. There are plenty of well established sites online for employers and employees to look for each other, and I doubt that anyone in this group would have any trouble finding them. So far it hasn't been an issue, but I would hate to see the signal in the mailing list get diluted with the noise of recruiters. If this comes up much more, I 'd vote for either relegating job postings to a dedicated page on the web site, or just banning them alltogether, depending on how the rest of the group feels. Your humble list moderator, Frank

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] Discussion: Email list policy for recruiters

by Bill Mills-Curran

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:42:22PM -0400, Andy Stewart wrote: <snip> > 3) I opened the topic for discussion because I want to be sure that > folks who are normally less vocal on the group mailing list have a > chance to air their opinions. > > 4) The end result of these discussions should be posted on the website > as a group policy so guests to our mailing list will understand what we > expect of them. > > Thanks, > > Andy <snip> It seems to me that much of the negative response was due to the type of job being offered. We all dislike the massive advertising on the web (even though it helps support much of the free access we enjoy), so members of the responded to that (I believe). Part the cost of having an open, free-flowing discussion list is being open to occasional content that we dislike. As long as it's only occasional, I say we live with it. If it becomes excessive, then we deal with it. I'm not even sure there was really much wrong with the posting, other than the strong marketing flavor of the posting ("we're great; work for us"). I don't think the posting was worth a flame, much less new posting rules. Bill

June 19, 2007

Re: [Wlug] JOB - Senior Operations Engineer - Boston, MA

by Keith Wright

> From: "Tal Cohen" <wlug(a)cohen123.com> > > What are the guidelines for posting > a relevant job opening to this group? Don't be a lamer. I am tempted to leave it there. True Lamers will never know who they are, but here are some guides to How To Be A Lamer. 1. Never come to a meeting. 2. Subscribe to the list for the sole purpose of posting your advertisement. 3. Fail the Turing Test by using cliches to indicate that your message was auto-generated by a computer or marketing manager. 4. Do not write any introductory remarks that might show your message is intended for the WLUG list, rather than every list in known space. There are, of course, many other possible lame actions. Note that I have no actual power over any list messages other than my own, and so my opinions are worthless except in so far as others agree with them. -- Keith

June 19, 2007