RE: Why do monks put up with it?

[PsychoSpunk]

Just to clear something up, I have never implied that if you are forced to use something that you don't want to use, that it is imperative that you quit. I was curious if you had tried FreeTDS, not to say that's the best solution. I did try FreeTDS in a similar situation, and I had no luck with it. So I chose to use ODBC.

I was looking for similarities between my own case and yours. I was not intending to piss you off in any manner. It's been my experience that PerlMonks is a place where I can ask a question to my problem and get an almost immediate response, often involving things I don't know about. I welcome these since sometimes while TMTOWTDI, my WTDI is not as good as what I get in response. But, I also understand that when my boss' WTDI is the only WTDI, I have to just put what I get as responses into my learning experience and throw it aside.

I'm going to end up agreeing with you, Ovid. A response that says "Why don't you just quit?" or "I would quit" doesn't aid the discussion. If I don't think I can aid in discussion, then I generally won't post. I felt that my post yesterday would either aid you, or me, by the results you possibly might have had with FreeTDS.

Thanks for broaching the topic. It is important that we keep PM up to an expected level of etiquette. That way, later if I post something similar to what spurred this, it will at least be given the benefit of a doubt that I am not saying "There's Only One Way To Do It." It can actually be read as why did you do X? What were your experiences with Y that led you to choose X instead? And it won't be considered hostile.

If I had prefaced my statement with the fact that you are among the monks I respect here, I wouldn't have been the straw to break the camel's back (sorry, the pun was inevitable) but we would have missed out on some important commentary.

I hope that I've fully cleared the air now.

ALL HAIL BRAK!!!

[Ovid]

Actually, you didn't piss me off in the slightest. I think I understood your intent, but my sincerest apologies if this thread came across wrong. I was just using your comments as a springboard for discussion.

On another note: I'm reading about so many people harping about bad technical decisions companies make. While this is often the case, I have found that many computer people refuse to acknowledge business decisions are at least as important as the technical ones. While we so often whine about management that doesn't understand what we do, management so often whines about computer weenies who can't understand simple concepts such as TCO, variance reporting, or opportunity costs. How are the two sides going to meet?

I remember one company I worked for was choosing budget software. It came down to two candidates. One software package was very flexible, extensible, and suited our corporate architecture very well.

The other software package was inflexible, limited in functionality, and had a proprietary database that no one knew anything about. On technical merits, it was unanimously voted down, yet it was the software package that management chose. Despite an uproar amongst the techies, it was the right decision (I was the techie who implemented and supported the software, so I was intimately familiar with what was happening). But why was it the right decision?

Because we were an insurance company, we had very tight regulations governing what we could and could not do. As a result, when it came to budget variance reporting, we had a deadline that was mandated by law (and it's a hell of a lot tougher than most think). Because we had just consolidated four companies into one and had to choose a new budget package, the one that we chose (despite its poor technical merits) was the ONLY package that we could get up and running on time. Hence, all of the techies thought management was stupid, and management moaned about computer people who refused to acknowledge that business forces often override technical considerations. Guess what, folks? It ain't a perfect world.

Cheers,
Ovid

[d4vis]

A minor point perhaps, but in response to:
>"computer weenies who can't understand simple concepts such as TCO, variance reporting, or opportunity costs."
I've often found that I (as a techie) have a much better understanding of the true TCO on a particular technology than our accountants and/or management. There are costs beyond purchase price and deployment, such as long-term support, ease of integration, training time, etc... that the accounting staff is in no position to judge.
It's the techies who can often provide the best estimate of the 'total' in TCO. We just have to learn enough of 'their' language to make our point clearly.

~d4vis
#!/usr/bin/fnord

[KM]

understand simple concepts such as TCO, variance reporting, or opportunity costs

Don't forget the new cover sheets for the TPS reports!
</Office Space reference>

Cheers,
KM

[Adam]

Um... yeah... we're gonna have to move your desk, yeah... yeah that'd be great...