In a message dated: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 01:01:22 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>On 7 Jul 2002, at 11:35pm, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
>> On the machine sitting on my desk to do my daily work, I *do* have control
>> over it, no matter what it is running. I see no problem with a policy
>> that I can support myself, so I'll use Linux.
>
> I assume from context that you would have no beef if you were "forced" to
>use Linux, but would object to being "forced" to use MS-Windows. So, I
>assume that, in the above, you really meant "what I want to", as opposed to
>"Linux".
We have to clear something up here. There is a huge difference
between "that which is used" and "that which is supported". I am all
for a set of standard, corporate-sanctioned, centrally administrated,
and accepted software. IT departments are far too over-burdened to
be required to support every combination of possible software
currently available, whether it be on Windows, Linux, or even VMS!
However, by using the corporate sanctioned/supported software, I also
expect to get total and complete support for it. If I stray from
that sanctioned list, I cannot expect to recieve one modicum of
support from the IT group. It is in that spirit that I advocate a
user's right to any software they want to use to help them get their
job done. Just don't expect it to be supported, or to recieve any
help at all with it!
> Well, that might work in a small shop, where you are the sole IT guy who
>reports directly to the company owner. But it breaks down in a large shop,
>where you are expected to be part of a team. Someone else already wrote
>something on this subject, better than I could:
>
> "Also, I find it interesting that an individuals personal needs seem to
>always over-ride the greater good of the company. Does no one ever think
>about what's more important in the long run anymore? Do people just not
>care?" -- Paul Lussier
Hmmm, smart guy! Couldn't have said it better myself! :)
However, let's take this in context. I do not now, nor have I ever
said, advocated, or even thought for a minute that the individual
needs of one person, whether it be me or the CEO of any company, or
even Ben should over-ride the greater good of the company.
This quote was also made in reference to a CEO who believed he should
get whatever the hell he wanted *because* he was CEO. Not because he
had a legitimate need for whatever it was that day, or because it was
in the interests of the company either in the short term or the long
term. He simply wanted things his way, which also happened to be in
direct contradiction to the basic security practices/policies he
himself agreed were a good idea. So, he was not only setting a bad
example, but he was coming right out and saying that none of the
(very few) policies that did exist mattered, or should even be
followed. After all, if he wasn't willing to follow them, why should
anyone else bother?
If there is a direct threat to the company as a whole, or if the use
of Linux, or your OS of choice, is problematic to the company or
long-term goals of the company, then you probably shouldn't do what
you are trying to do. However, I haven't yet seen this become an
issue for anyone yet by just using a "non-corporate standard piece of
software". Even Microsoft, who admit to still using a
UNIX based environment in the development and production of their own
products!
--
Seeya,
Paul
----
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
*****************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body.
*****************************************************************
