I really try to look for the positive
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick2 Sep 05, 2006 7:23 AM EDT |
But then an article comes along that is soooo bad I must revile it. It looks like the Microsoft astroturf campaign is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I don't want to rip the whole article apart because I don't have time. Here's some choice bits: "As we all know, the sole purpose of a corporation is to be efficient and boost its bottom line healthily." Sole purpose? I don't think so. It's a great excuse for justifying all manner of abuses. "Depending on the size of the company, if it has to hire administrators to manage Windows, Mac and Linux platforms simultaneously just so it could give its employees the kind of workstation they want, that will put unnecessary pressure on its bottom line. For the technologically advanced, that might not matter too much, but for people who are not as well versed in platforms as they could be, that presents a serious problem to employers." This is so twisted and illogical it gave me a headache. Forcing employees to use the wrong tools to do their jobs is what creates problems. The second page paints this silly scenario of a dev converting his workstation to Linux, then making some desktop tweaks that *gasp* lock him out of his computer and eat all his data!! OMG!! Two weeks' of data gone forever!! Employee is fired!! But even worse: "But can you imagine how much the company has lost in terms of an otherwise productive employee who they spent training? They have lost the data, had to fire a good employee and is now at square one in search of a replacement to re-code everything from scratch. Not only did the company lose financially, but it could also have dire consequences competitively. Why? Because of the company’s decision to make its employees delighted with platform flexibility." Good employees don't hose their systems and lose data. I'm starting to think that free speech is overrated. |
| SFN Sep 05, 2006 7:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:The employees might not be at fault every time, but companies prefer to generalize and assume everyone in their company knows absolutely nothing about a platform and will cause havoc if given anything but Windows. If they are worried about their employees causing havoc, they should have their employees use operating systems that do not give their employees the ability to cause havoc. If the corporation chooses Windows to prevent havoc, then they are to blame. Grade: F Comments: try harder next time |
| jimf Sep 05, 2006 8:04 AM EDT |
Two short pages of rambling excuses from the worst kind of Corporate department manager. Again, short enough to post here, but again, she would have had to defend the garbage. What's really scary is that there are a lot of managers today in Corporate managerial positions who think exactly that way. |
| NoDough Sep 05, 2006 9:52 AM EDT |
>Sole purpose? I don't think so. It's a great excuse for justifying all manner of abuses.< Agreed. >Good employees don't hose their systems and lose data.< Not true. Good, KNOWLEDGEABLE employees don't hose their systems and lose data. I worked in an IT dept. several years ago. On one occasion, I got a call from an engineering secretary because she couldn't open her documents. Turns out, an engineer advised her that she should never keep her documents on the network, because "IT couldn't be trusted to make a good backup." She interpreted that as she shouldn't keep the documents on her computer. So, she copied all her documents to floppy disks and leaned the diskettes neatly against the front of her 19" CRT monitor. She was a good employee. She lost all of her documents anyway. >The employees might not be at fault every time, but companies prefer to generalize and assume everyone in their company knows absolutely nothing about a platform and will cause havoc if given anything but Windows.< This statement is absolutely true of companies. Their systems are designed to the least common denominator, which they perceive to be Windows. Why not more platforms? Because IT departments are overhead and overhead expenses are, nearly without exception, minimized because they are not perceived as revenue-producing resources. In other words, IT is perceived as a necessary evil. The real irony is that the funds and staff exercised building a Windows-only company could be easily halved building a Linux-only company. But managers don't know this. Why not? Simple. When I served as the IT department's system analyst I received one piece of advertising material from Microsoft about every two weeks. The managers, however, received at least one piece of MS marketing material every day. Some received many more than one per day. Microsoft doesn't market to people that know systems, they market to people that make decisions. Having said all that and knowing the current flawed state, you'll probably think I'm crazy when I make my next point. Even though marketing is currently ruling the day and Linux marketing is almost an oxymoron, things are just peachy? Why? Because without marketing Linux has achieved double-digit market share in the server space. Without marketing Linux is approaching (what I believe to be) 10% market share on the desktop. And without marketing Linux is experiencing double-digit year-to-year growth. In short, Linux is winning. Granted, we all want it to happen faster, but nonetheless it is happening. :^) |
| number6x Sep 05, 2006 12:29 PM EDT |
"Depending on the size of the company, if it has to hire administrators to manage Windows, Mac and Linux platforms simultaneously just so it could give its employees the kind of workstation they want, that will put unnecessary pressure on its bottom line. For the technologically advanced, that might not matter too much, but for people who are not as well versed in platforms as they could be, that presents a serious problem to employers." This is why companies should shun Windows. Unix and Linux based operating systems share many utilities. training admins on Linux, Unix, or BSD is easy. The Training applicable to Sun or HP Unix or to Mac OS/X will be easily used on Linux, BSD, or even SCO Unix. The reverse is also true. However Microsoft Windows is the odd man out. Money spent on training and tools for Windows can rarley be used elsewhere. Its only applicable to Windows. So there is some truth in this article. Look for this truth, and avoid Windows at all costs. That is, if you want to be one of those efficient companies that makes your bottom line grow! :) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!