On 9/14/06, Sheryl <gubydala@his.com> wrote:
> Grant Rettke wrote:
> > Hi Sheryl, totally understood.
>
> Actually, not quite, I think.
>
> > One approach is to hire commodity
> > developers, stick with commodity technologies, and minimize risks.
>
> "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" as an old boss used to say. :-)
>
> > Another approach is to hire excellent developers, rely on your
> > developers to make technical decisions, and in doing so minimize risk.
> > The first one is probably easier.
[snip]
> Also, it isn't just a technical decision, it's a business decision. I've
> seen a lot of talented people spend thousands of dollars of company time
> to put together a "free" solution when the alternative would be to spend
> $250 on something off-the-shelf. To the developer, it's often because
> it's fun, or because they get fixated on the up-front dollar cost and
> don't consider the cost of their time to implement. But to the manager,
> it might just be a diversion from work directly related to the mission.
Ah! But most commercial solutions need complex (and lengthy)
configuration processes too. It's not like server software generally
works out-of-the-box...
> I'm not saying that subversion is such a solution, I'm just trying to make
> a case for why a manager has a legitimate reason to inquire into *why* his
> people would choose one solution over another.
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Sep 14 22:37:28 2006