billwg <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> The article defends the wrong side (blissful ignorance) and makes false
>> assumptions.
>
> Not at all, royboy. The risk taker gets to set the rules for the
> enterprise. That would be the owner of the business or the managers in
> a public corporation with direct responsibility to the board of
> directors and stockholders. If they say it is OK to use linux or Macs
> or whatever, then it is OK. If they say no, then you cannot do that.
> Worker dweebs are required to follow orders or else they are removed
> from the premises.
Do you have any idea how many C*0s I've known who have subscribed to that
exact philosophy, the self-important fucks, who have destroyed entire
organizations because IT WAS THEIR DECISION?
And every last one of them...every last one, I've laughed my ass off at.
I'm quite sure there'll be more, suddenly having to sell all their condo
in the village because the board canned their sorry ass for being a fucking
idiot, having to move back to Idaho to work on their dad's farm because
no one in NYC would ever hire them again...
God I fucking love it when that happens.
>
> They all think that they know more, but that is only what they think.
> They are universally clueless as to what best serves the enterprise.
> They have COLA to commiserate with one another.
>
I saved a US national cable company just over four million dollars a
few years ago, and I did it with just about 20 hours of work, 30,000
in hardware costs, and an argument with the CEO about his fucking moronic
sense of "value" and his idiot purchasing habits.
He let me, and he was pretty glad he did.
Asshole.
-----yttrx
--
http://www.yttrx.net
|
|
