Upgrade question

S. Bougerolle steveb at creek-and-cowley.com
Thu Oct 3 18:39:07 PDT 2002


On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 08:56, Tony Karakashian wrote:
> Um, the point of the whole paragraph was that I use Windows where 
> necessary, and Unix/Linux everywhere else.  It was also about the office,
> I only once mentioned it at home and it was in another portion of the mail.

I should not have said "at home".  I meant simply that nobody cares what
you use except as it fits with linux, the central focus of this group of
people.  When you keep raising (or "defending" or "correcting," if you
prefer) Windows debates here, the best response you should expect is to
be told "take it somewhere else", since linux users tend naturally not
to be keen on discussing Windows.  Of course, I'm perpetuating this
silliness by answering :).  I'll promise everyone else to limit this
exchange to two more messages at most.

Since the issue has come up - do you mean to say you're conducting this
stupid debate from work?  And getting paid over $100,000 per year for
this?

> >> Your concern should be to maintain services, not
> >> systems.  If users can keep doing the same jobs at least as well as
> >> before, they don't care about the technology behind it.  Thus, there is
> >> no need to reproduce everything Windows CAN do.  
> 
> Yes, there is.  If Linux can't provide the services my people need, then
> I can't use it.

The services they NEED, yes.  (That is what I said). This is not at all
the same as "exactly EVERYTHING that Windows can do".  Do you really
believe you are using every capability of Windows now?  That you ever
will be?  That's a direct quote from your message; is this another case
where you said "all" and meant "some"?  If so, just say so and we can
close this branch of the discussion.

I likewise wonder if you have even come close to exploring ALL the
capabilities of Linux.  Frankly, regardless of the real accomplishments
you list for yourself, you still radiate rigidity and closed-mindedness.

> My main concern has always about providing services to my 
> users, see my previous reply.

Yes, I noted that in later messages.  I apologize for not giving you
your due there earlier.  It just took time to get through all 75
messages, since YOUR mail system split them into about 25 threads. 
Perhaps in future I'll simply turn threading off and sort by date, if
I'm reading a long chain involving your posts.  Or maybe I just won't
bother reading in the first place. I don't remember ever reading a
comment from you that was helpful to anyone, anyway.

Your stated concern for your users is all well and good, but you seem to
show a bit of an operator mentality.  Catering directly to user's needs
is fine but it does lead one into various sorts of problems without
leadership from the top and an occasional bit of prodding away from
"convenience traps" (for example, imagine an organization where the IT
managers kept on doing their best to support the existing and
progressively less-supported Mac systems forever instead of biting the
bullet and switching over to Intel).  That IS your level of management
now, isn't it?  Do you never have those sorts of decisions to make?  You
can just keep on with the status quo indefinitely?

> Given a real choice, I'd run an all 
> AS/400 shop and give everyone dumb terminals.  But, alas, that's not an 
> option... :)

Well, what to say to that... 

> >> What you should be doing, if you are an IT manager, is looking at their
> >> real needs (expressed, seen and anticipated) and coming up with the best
> >> possible solution according to your expertise.  Then you should stick to
> >> what you said and fight the political battles to make it happen. 
> 
> Choosing solutions based entirely on your expertise is a slow death.

That's only true if you consider your expertise to be limited to
technical areas.  I hope you got a management job by showing management
and "people" skills.  However, this is obviously optimistic since you've
just, needlessly and with little effort, antagonized many people.

Anyway, the point is clear and we're just repeating each other; the
technology is just a bunch of building blocks to help get real work
done. The real debate is all about strategy and you seem not to want to
argue that aspect of it.  

>  Personally, I like to be challenged.  
> No thanks, I don't like sticking to what I know, it's too limiting.

See, this is the sort of comment that gets people annoyed.  It's not
only provocative but also a misinterpretation, and I'll guess further
that you don't really want to hear what people are saying, you just want
to stir up shit.  Of course, this is a favourite Usenet pastime :) but
LFS isn't really the place for it, is it?

-- 
Steve Bougerolle
Creek & Cowley Consulting

http://www.creek-and-cowley.com

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list