Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Eternal IT Devotion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MCWebsite.Staff
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2007
    • 997

    Eternal IT Devotion

    ** This thread discusses the article: Eternal IT Devotion **
    ** This thread discusses the Content article: Eternal IT Devotion **
    0
  • Guest.Visitor

    #2
    Eternal IT Devotion

    ** This thread discusses the article: Eternal IT Devotion **
    As an IT Director I find myself in the middle of several technologies and if I could limit the proliferation of implemented technologies we might be able to manage it. Between IBM, Microsoft and now Linux and Open Source I have more on my plate with fewer resoruces to administer healing to the poor, downtrodden, user masses. Polarizing to one side or the other can, at times, simplify.

    Comment

    • bharder@nlrha.ab.ca

      #3
      Eternal IT Devotion

      ** This thread discusses the article: Eternal IT Devotion **
      Truly, I hear your message oh great enlightened one! And yet I have doubts and questions. So many questions! In my experience these disputes are caused by people who care. Although a source of friction, that's a better problem to have than apathy, lethargy, and people who truly don't care. Anarchy and chaos lie at the end of "don't care" boulevard. Furthermore, I think maybe your analogies need a little work. Relational databases are actually better than what came before. Why? A partial list would include SQL, ODBC, Normal Forms, client side reporting abilities and yes, Codd's 12 rules. That doesn't really cover the whole issue, however. Relational databases are a standard, not a product. That's something that greatly increases their value. If you really need proof, look at the dominance of relational databases in the marketplace. It's the same thing with graphical interfaces. A graphical interface is better than a character interface, all other things being equal. That's one key reason why graphical interfaces dominate the market. Sure, you're correct that we shouldn't treat technologies like religions. On the other hand, you often have to fight to improve your world. If you didn't care then you wouldn't fight. No, we need to treat technologies like the fascinating tools they are. The goal is simply improvement, but you can't ever really reach that goal. Once you stop trying to improve things you're dead.

      Comment

      • J.Klebanoff
        Junior Member
        • Jul 2024
        • 359

        #4
        Eternal IT Devotion

        ** This thread discusses the article: Eternal IT Devotion **
        You do what you have to do in order to thrive and survive. Those who can, do. Those who can't, rant. I rant. My complaint is not so much against polarizing to one side or another, but rather the rationale for doing so. I see too many people who worship the means -- the technology -- rather than the end -- the business objective that the technology is supposed to achieve. That was really my point. That and the fact that some of the really hard core techies occasionally forget that at sometime you have to stop raving over and/or debating about the merits of the technology and actually get some real work done.

        Comment

        • J.Klebanoff
          Junior Member
          • Jul 2024
          • 359

          #5
          Eternal IT Devotion

          ** This thread discusses the article: Eternal IT Devotion **
          Brian, I trust that "oh great enlightened one" was sarcasm. While it is true that I now used to be a moderately good application programmer, that was a long time ago. I've since lost much of my technical prowess and now have trouble screwing in a light bulb. (Which reminds me of the old joke: How many programmers does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. It's a hardware problem.) I agree that we have to fight to improve our world. If humanity didn't, we'd still be living in caves, trying to make fire by rubbing two sticks together. I also agree with you that caring is better than apathy -- as long as you don't get carried away. I was a programmer when relational databases were first coming into general use. I wasn't kidding when I said that people used to debate for hours on end the percentage adherence of a particular relational database (I think it was DB2 that was under discussion most at the time) to Codd's 12 rules. I would listen to them for a few minutes and then go do some real work. How the debaters got any meaningful work done was totally beyond me. I see some of the same sorts of "religious" debates about some of the newer technology fads. (I know that you will beat me up over the word "fad", but I'm willing to bet that some of the technologies now being touted as the latest, greatest thing will end up going nowhere. I don't know which ones, but I know that there will be some.) And, as I suggested in an earlier reply, what is important is how well a technology achieves the required business objective, not the underlying technology itself. Standards are a wonderful thing. I was on a standards committee back at one of my employers when I was a programmer (a time that roughly coincided with the stone age) and I argued vociferously in favor of adhering to standards. But the standards are important because they can help achieve business objectives, including efficiency. The standards are a means to an end, not the end in themselves. I think at one level everyone knows that, but I don't think that always gets put into practice. Joel

          Comment

          Working...
          X