[gnhlug-jobs] [NH Jobs List] Job: Network/Database Administrator - Manchester

[Paul Lussier]

Travis Roy <travis at scootz.net> writes:
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Paul Lussier wrote:

>> However, many people use computers to get a job done, and they have
>> spent 15 or 20 *years* learning a particular environment.  It makes
>> even *less* sense for them to throw out that 15 or 20 years of
>> experience using specific applications and environments just
>> because they may save a $100 or $200 dollars by switching to a
>> different application.
>
> If that's the case then they wouldn't want to upgrade Office. The
> last three version have changed quite a bit. I would say the
> difference between Office 2000 and Office 2007 are much more dramatic
> than switching to OpenOffice for example.

You're missing the point.  It's *their* perception that matters.  Not
yours.  They've been using, from their point of view, the same piece
of software for years which has, over that time, been getting
incrementally better.  You can't tell them to throw that away and
learn somethng new, to them, that's overwhelming.  It's going to cost
them a lot of time and frustration to make that change.  Lost time is
lost money.  And it's likely to cost them more than whatever the
mostly hidden cost of an Office suite does.

Remember, in most cases, the people using the software have little or
nothing to do with how it is assembled and installed.  They use what's
given to them.  To change their applications would imply they know how
and/or care to.  There is no incentive for them to do so, financial or
otherwise.  Attacking a recruiter or HR person for simply requesting
the only thing they know about is as pointless as telling them they
should be using different software.  If energy is going to be expended
on converting people over to use free apps, the effort should be spent
by educating those who put the apps there in the first place.

Consider *why* people use MS in the first place.  MS spend a lot of
time, effort and money "educating" people about their products.  They
gave away the applications to the home users, then educated the
enterprises on how much money they would save by using the
"enterprise" version of the same applications people were already
using at home.  Then they spend more time, effort, and money educating
people how much easier it would be to use at home, the same products
they already used at the office.

If you want to convert the world away from MS, you need to use the
same subversive tactics.  Start with the enterprise IT folks.  Show
them how much money they'll save in license and deployment costs by
switching their enterprise to OpenOffice.  Explain how much time
they'll save by not having to track licenses, and ensuring compliance,
or upgrade data conversions and rollouts.  Then educate the people
that they can use the same software at home they've started using at
work and that it won't cost a fortune.

> True, but I still stand by what I said (even more so after confirming
> that the job posting was done by a recruiting firm) that the job
> posting was put together by a goof that knows nothing about
> technology and if you sent them a RTF they wouldn't know the
> difference. 

Why is this even relevant?  Anyone who's ever dealt with an
non-technical person in their life already knows that when they
request Word document they simply mean something that opens when they
click on it.  

Why does their ignorance of file formats constiture them as being a
goof?  Can you explain the difference between the EFA and the MSCI
EAFE ?  If not, does that make you a goof?  Just because someone is
ignorant of something is not a license to deride them or call them
names.  Please think about the message that sends about you and it's
reflection upon this group?

In other words, "Please Be Nice!" (TM).

-- 
Seeya,
Paul