Re: [SLE] Convert to Outlook from Mozilla/Thunderbird
On Apr 10, 2005 12:03 AM, doc
Are they forcing that change because of Calendar or do they really want their users to be *more* vulnerable to hackers and viruses and to be less efficient using an inferior app merely because someone believes M$ disinformation?
Windows politics require me to run XP in my workplace as well but they at least had sense enough to promote FireFox and Thunderbird as recommended replacement apps.
Sorry I cannot answer your downgrade question. Have you asked on the Mozilla/Thunderbird site? I think I recall that they have a user group.
Sorry also about your technological circumstances!
doc
The dept pushing the change doesn't even want non-MS stuff around. Everytime someone hits them up on how to use Photoshop, Acrobat (not the reader), Xwin app to a nix box, etc.; I get forwarded a call. This provides me with a chance to evangelize the unwashed. I've converted a few to Linux and some to OS X. Yeah, that dept loves it when I do that. Them: "Why did you do that? We don't recommend that. We don't support that." Me: "Well maybe if you did, your users wouldn't be ticked off at your support (or lack thereof) center. And remember, you sent them to me because you couldn't get it done with the MS solution." Those are days when I can go home happy. John
John, On Sunday 10 April 2005 17:21, John Scott wrote:
...
Them: "Why did you do that? We don't recommend that. We don't support that."
Perhaps you could suggest to them that their role is to provide the services that their users demand, not to dictate to them what form those needs must take. Probably not, but perhaps...
Me: "Well maybe if you did, your users wouldn't be ticked off at your support (or lack thereof) center. And remember, you sent them to me because you couldn't get it done with the MS solution."
Those are days when I can go home happy.
John
Good luck. No doubt you'll need it. Randall Schulz
On Apr 10, 2005 8:33 PM, Randall R Schulz
John,
On Sunday 10 April 2005 17:21, John Scott wrote:
...
Them: "Why did you do that? We don't recommend that. We don't support that."
Perhaps you could suggest to them that their role is to provide the services that their users demand, not to dictate to them what form those needs must take.
Probably not, but perhaps...
Me: "Well maybe if you did, your users wouldn't be ticked off at your support (or lack thereof) center. And remember, you sent them to me because you couldn't get it done with the MS solution."
Those are days when I can go home happy.
John
Good luck. No doubt you'll need it.
Randall Schulz
I've tried to "remind" my boss that we're their customers, not their employees. We're "suppossed" to be autonomous. Same drivel about "playing well with others" and "cooperation between depts." and "not drawing attention to ourselves." How about some of that cooperation coming my way for a change? Nope. And there isn't anything wrong with attention, squeaky wheel you know. John
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 20:33, Randall R Schulz wrote:
John,
On Sunday 10 April 2005 17:21, John Scott wrote:
...
Them: "Why did you do that? We don't recommend that. We don't support that."
Perhaps you could suggest to them that their role is to provide the services that their users demand, not to dictate to them what form those needs must take.
This seems to be a trend in IT circles. I get this at work all the time. Our IT dept even decides how we're going to configure and use applications. It's supposed to make it easy on them when they upgrade to a newer version, they just have to nuke the existing configuration in favour of the vendor's, but all it does is frustrate us when we get a workable solution and get told "that that is not how we ought to be doing it".
On Monday 11 April 2005 00:03, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 20:33, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 10 April 2005 17:21, John Scott wrote:
Them: "Why did you do that? We don't recommend that. We don't support that."
Perhaps you could suggest to them that their role is to provide the services that their users demand, not to dictate to them what form those needs must take.
This seems to be a trend in IT circles. I get this at work all the time. Our IT dept even decides how we're going to configure and use applications. It's supposed to make it easy on them when they upgrade to a newer version, they just have to nuke the existing configuration in favour of the vendor's, but all it does is frustrate us when we get a workable solution and get told "that that is not how we ought to be doing it".
Dittos. Though, our PC/LAN dudes try to restrict the way we use our Windows PCs primarily for self-preservation. They spend all their time running around and applying patches and cleaning up viruses and don't need more of their time wasted by some pointy-haired manager with only half a clue munging up his system. So, everyone, including developers (including the Unix developers) are treated like idiots. We (the Unix developers) get around this by never logging into the Novell server on the LAN which pretty much prevents the PC/LAN office from interfering with the "bad" things we do to our PCs.
On Apr 11, 2005 12:07 AM, Synthetic Cartoonz
On Monday 11 April 2005 00:03, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 20:33, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 10 April 2005 17:21, John Scott wrote:
Them: "Why did you do that? We don't recommend that. We don't support that."
Perhaps you could suggest to them that their role is to provide the services that their users demand, not to dictate to them what form those needs must take.
This seems to be a trend in IT circles. I get this at work all the time. Our IT dept even decides how we're going to configure and use applications. It's supposed to make it easy on them when they upgrade to a newer version, they just have to nuke the existing configuration in favour of the vendor's, but all it does is frustrate us when we get a workable solution and get told "that that is not how we ought to be doing it".
Dittos. Though, our PC/LAN dudes try to restrict the way we use our Windows PCs primarily for self-preservation. They spend all their time running around and applying patches and cleaning up viruses and don't need more of their time wasted by some pointy-haired manager with only half a clue munging up his system. So, everyone, including developers (including the Unix developers) are treated like idiots.
We (the Unix developers) get around this by never logging into the Novell server on the LAN which pretty much prevents the PC/LAN office from interfering with the "bad" things we do to our PCs.
Yep. I remind them that the only wIndows I use daily are for the view to/from work, and to look at the lake behind my house. As for the other Windows, it runs in vm when needed to test something. That makes it easy to keeep the infestation from getting out of control. Just close the vm. If the Windows-vm crashes to a bsod (ready Ms. Spears) - Ooops! It did it again. Finally, a pop song that's useful for something, we all know they aren't good to listen to. Kinda like using Windows - mindless drivel. John
participants (4)
-
John Scott
-
Mike McMullin
-
Randall R Schulz
-
Synthetic Cartoonz