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

In reply to (Ovid) RE(2): Management vs. Geeks by Ovid
in thread Why do monks put up with it? by Ovid

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.