From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 25 19:47:38 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E173E16A4CE for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:47:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D41C43D5D for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:47:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1101.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8BDD21C00097 for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:47:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1101.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 378691C0008D for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:47:36 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050225194736227.378691C0008D@mwinf1101.wanadoo.fr Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:47:35 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1922605381.20050225204735@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: References: <1907334115.20050225132200@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:47:38 -0000 Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > Your missing the point. It's far more cost-effective for a business to > not hire a bunch of whiners in the first place. They aren't whiners. It's perfectly logical for them to want to work with software for which they are already trained, and it's equally logical for a company to let them work with software for which they are already trained. There's no reason at all to retrain them on something completely different. > But I don't expect this kind of whining from someone I hire at $30K a > year to actually do some real clerical work that requires some > responsibility, and I am not going to stand for it for the $60K and > above grown up adult that I hire for a managerial or ops position or > some such. I guess you can spend another $60K on training them to use something else and hope they don't leave until you amortize that additional expense (if you ever do). But that doesn't seem to make very good business sense. > Unfortunately, there's still too many upper managers in business today > who came of age before the computer became integrated into business, > and chose to be lazy and not learn how to use them, and as a result > today cannot themselves operate the things, so it is not possible for > them to hold their employees to any kind of standard in this area. They already _know_ how to use computers; they just aren't familiar with the software that you personally prefer. They know the most popular software on the market and how to use it; they can get their work done with that software alone, without any need for anything else. There is no reason for them to look elsewhere for software, nor is there any reason for them to waste time and money learning other, more obscure software packages that just do nothing more than Office already does. Managers don't have an emotional attachment to any type of computer software. They run Office because everyone knows how to use Office. And employees want Office because that's what they know how to use. It's perfectly rational, and fully cost-effective, and it has nothing to do with laziness or the age at which someone was first exposed to computers. > All throughout our businesses careers, we will be faced with this > problem of having to unlearn the old way of doing things and learn > new, better ways. Not necessarily. When something works well enough, there's no reason to learn anything else. > Everyone that works in a job faces this. Not necessarily. Even in jobs that require the use of a computer, it isn't necessary to relearn things over and over. Microsoft Word and Excel haven't changed significantly in ages. > Unfortunately, many people choose to refuse to unlearn old ways, and a > larger percentage of them get like this when they have been doing the > old way for a long time. They have to have a good reason to learn new ways, and "because someone in the IT department hates Microsoft" isn't a good reason. -- Anthony