[geeks] Re: "Word Processing" != productive use of one's time....

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Sunday, August 19, 2001 at 14:15:00 (-0500), Reagen B . Ward wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [geeks] Re: "Word Processing" != productive use of one's time....
>
>  It's easy to be opinionated, but at a large biz,
> it's harder to have those opinions heard.

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that you can't do your job in the best way
you know how, and still work with your team, if management is willing to
treat you as the professional you are.

>  Is the TCO of an MS product
> over a few years that much greater than the cost of converting 150k 
> desktops to a non-MS platform?

It depends on how far down the line you look.

I've done work at companies that thought they'd save by moving everyone
from centrally managed X11-terminals to NT-based workstations.  They
figured it would be cheaper to manage than upgrading some of the
software they were using on the central Unix systems.  They went out and
leased $30,000 workstations (including software licenses) for every
desktop.  Then they found out they were going to have to hire about a
dozen NT admins to keep the same level of service for their users.  Last
I heard they were still bleeding money like it was going out of style.

>  When at EDS/FMC, we had to convert a lot
> of old documents from WP to something else.  I pushed and pushed for
> RTF, as if you're paying for the conversion once, only pay for it once.
> But they went ahead and paid for conversion to MSWord.  In 5 years, when
> Word is no longer on top, they'll have to pay again.  They don't learn
> from history:  Nobody is on top forever.

Typical North American corporate (and especially middle-level
government) management is far too short-sighted.  Wall Street (Bay
Street here in Canada) calls the shots, not long term best-for-the-firm
decisions.

> So, you've managed to avoid using all MS products while working at a
> larger company?

Absolutely.  Well as long as you don't count SCO UNIX as being M$
infested :-) the last time I actually used M$ crapware was when I was
actually writing code for it back in about 1986.  That was a rather
large company (one of the Weston group, Loblaws, Inc.).  It was at the
time kinda OK because we were only writing client stuff to interface to
their IBM mainframe.  I wrote the 3270 driver DLL and various graphing
and visualisation tools.

All the while there though I used as many unix tools as I could manage
to port to Windoze (eg. Emacs :-), or buy pre-ported, eg. the MKS KSH
toolkit.  I even got most of the rest of the team to use ksh since it
made scripting development tools and builds so much easier.  I'd done
lots of M$-Dog development prior to that, but I've always, from day one,
despised M$ software development tools.  Even their compiler, which I'd
fought with since the day it was released right through the days of
trying to use it on SCO Xenix and SCO UNIX, caused me more headaches
than anything else, and at times it was unfortunately the only even
barely viable compiler available.  (Before M$ had their own compiler
they resold the Lattice one, which sucked way more....)

I went back to Loblaws a year later for another contract that was
supposed to be a couple years in duration and worked on Unix stuff that
was to replace the windoze clients (and maybe even the mainframe).  This
time I insisted on avoiding even SCO Unix.  Not long afterwards though I
got an offer to work at a "real" unix consulting firm and never looked
back.

I did sort of help my wife set up Windoze for her father on the computer
we built for him from mostly spare parts, and I even tried helping her
Aunt get some stuff straightened out on an ancient 3.1 PC, but I tell
all the rest of my friends that I just don't do Windoze.

I also tell all my non-computer-literate friends to buy Macs too, though
I don't do MacOS either....

>  I run FreeBSD on my desk, but even then I use VMWare to 
> get at Outlook, Vantive, etc.  I'd love to here how you avoided it.

I simply absolutely refuse to have anything to do with any M$ software.
I will not ever touch the crap.  If the company mail system is
M$-Exchange then I access my e-mail with POP.  If they won't support POP
on their server then I force them to forward all my e-mail directly to
the mailer on my workstation.  If they won't do that then I just let it
pile up unread and I'll only correspond with the rest of the company
through external Internet e-mail.  So far I've never had a manager try
to force me to use OutLuck or such, but if one ever did I'd recommend
that he/she read my e-mail for me instead, and once that got too tedious
to ask the IT guy to enable the POP server so that I could read it
myself.

I don't do much spreadsheet stuff, but even 'sc' or 'oleo' have more
than sufficed for my needs.

I don't even know what Vantive is (and don't want to! :-)

Last time a client wanted help making CVS work from NT clients to their
Unix server I set it up on the Unix side (from an X11 terminal), then
sat back and watched the NT admin figure out how to do the things I told
him were necessary (trying not to laugh when he got lost).  Once he got
it right I told him how to test it, and once it was working I walked out
the door with my invoice on the table.

If anyone sends me a document in a proprietary form (or even in
HTML-only) I simply delete it.  If I'm in a really good mood I might
send them a note reminding them that I just delete non-text e-mails.
I don't even accept RTF any more -- it's gone way off the deep end and
there are no free converters that can handle it well enough to use in a
business environment.

> Perhaps the answer is to avoid employment with companies that have
> standardized on MS products?

That's one way, but it's a really really really restrictive choice since
M$ does have quite a wide slice of the market pie.

A better way is to simply approach job positions as a professional and
to tell management up front, before you sign the contract, that you will
use the tools you're most comfortable with and which make you the most
productive, or you will not work for them (no matter how much you
want/need the job).  Stick by your principles.

The other trick is to not slight the IT guys in their face too much.
Always make sure they think you're half joking.  Always help them "do
things right" when they come to you with problems (though of course
don't let that take you away from your real job).  The more you can show
them why you use the tools you do instead of the crappy ones they have,
the more likely you are to instill a bit of enlightenment.  Some
"9-5"-type IT dudes just don't want to learn anything though....

A software professional or systems administrator is like a good mechanic
or machinist.  He or she has their own tools.  A really good mechanic
takes great pride in their tools too, keeping them clean and always in
the right place.  What do you think a good mechanic would do if their
manager tried to force them to use a pair of vice grips and their best
judgement on a head bolt instead of a proper fitting socket on a torque
wrench?  I'd personally fear for that manager's health -- fully
expecting the vice grips to end up violating some orfice on their body!

Now if anyone actually likes M$-Outlook, Word, or whatever, and has
learned to drive them productively then bully for them -- I won't force
them not to use them; and I'll put up with hearing their praise if
they'll put up with me dissing their tools and trying to show them how
much better my tools are!  ;-)

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods at acm.org>     <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>;   Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>