Dev boxes: No, no, no, no and no.
Test boxes: The same.

As an example, If you have 4 developers, there will be 4 different versions of Java in use, and none of them will ever be the corporate standard. Each developer will insist that thier version is "God's own" and force a company wide upgrade, not caring about any other application that requires a specific version.

If developers want to play, they can go home and dev on thier home machine. No problem.

The corporate machine is a machine owned by the corp and must follow the rules.

If there is ever a fantastic reason to upgrade, then the business case has to be put, and approved. Not simply because the developer used that version and seemed ok at the time.

Rules of getting things done:

1: Right tool for the job.

If in doubt, read rule 1.

Newspapers might be only be able to display static text, but you probably don't want to use your tablet to swap a fly or mozzie. Then again, anything printed on paper never ran out of batteries

Did no one create a use case, or justification? And then run a proof of concept? Or did the whole team just get a case of the "oooooh, aaah, shinies"?

In the age of doublethink, I smell a rat as it crumbles like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Isn't this as good as the DOJ asking crims/terry-wrists/pedo's to use the phone? Y'know, the whole "art of war" thing, "when you are weak, you must appear strong, and when you are strong, you must appear weak".

I'd say that the DOJ has an Apple supplied reader and decryption key at the ready. They may, or may not have a similar device for Andriod, Windows or BB devices, but for sure they have one for Apple devices.

There is no way they would or should give away thier weaknesses.

On the other hand, never put down to conspiracy what can be attributed to incompetance.

Cavaet Emptor.

"1984": Everything is so depressingly true.

For the flip side, "Brave New World". If only these two had been combined, Brave New 1984 or some such.

Just look around, if it isn't from the pages of 1984, then it's so much from Brave New World.

Ok, may not be science fiction, but at the time, the technology they envisaged didn't yet exist. So, yeah, sciency enough.

Interruptions, interruptions, interruptions.

I do both project and break-fix. However, we have no internal walls with 12 people in the area, in 3 teams. It's quite possible that we have 4 people on the phone for business calls and 2 or more people goofing off, and others in meetings. Goofing off is anything from idle chit-chat to playing rugby with the backup tape.

Some of those on the phone want a quick answer to a question and those goofing off are just a distraction.

Meetings and project work are best done in a distraction free environment. Some project work requires collaboration which often means being accessible to co-workers. Some times not. Break fix almost always means some collaboration but sometime means research and analysis.

The best work places provide opportunities for collaboration, but not at the expense of quiet work areas. And vice-versa.

Personally, the sooner I can get an office so I can shut my door when I can't be disturbed, the better. Working from home occasionally is some way towards this (and stops me going bat-shit insane).

I actually get more done when I'm on the road and placed in some office or small conference room than at my usual desk.

Yes, It's called "having nukes".

The various North Korean and Iranian despots are well aware of this fact.

- planning meetings for Christmas.
- planning/budget meetings for next year.
- internal audit.
- External audit.
- project wrap ups for stuff that finished mid-year.
- Cup day
- footy finals.

Indeed the lead up to the end of year is so full of management lead distractions that quality time is as rare as can be. Seasonal distractions vary from region to region, but checking the corporate calendar, it always seems to be a holiday or festival somewhere.

(dam It's too early to be posting here)

Like the right of my child to be school/raised an as risk free environment as possible? Your kid doesn't get to go to my kids school unless you prove he/she is safe. I will do likewise and will provide certificates of immunization, will you match that?

Nos, you have the right to have your kid immunized, your choice. You DON'T get the privileges and benefits that are bestowed on others that have fulfilled their social obligations.

Additionally, in Australia, one contributes to publicly available health care via a taxation levy. Those on benefits get virtually free health care. Immunization is a way to ensure that the taxpayer isn't forking out extra to treat a kid for some preventable disease. Which means more money for things such as schools, roads, etc.

Please don't make it sound like Twilight for Whovians.

Shudder.

Today a little piece of my inner nerd just died.

Please don't let me wake up and suddely find that I'm a responsible 40 year old IT professional/business person. I'll be repeating that as I stumble home drunkenly tonight.

If I think like a business man, then I want a drug which is taken regularly* and prevents or drastically reduces the symptoms of the common cold.

*The actual value of "regularly" is (1) sufficient to line my pockets forever, and (2) not be a PITA so that those that can afford the drug keep taking it.

There isn't any money to be made from really curing the disease. The big money is managing the disease.

Well said.

Most IT guys have no problem with a Apple device, on it's own. However, it's not just a question of plugging it in to a corporate network.

There's a whole bunch of management behind the computer system that "creative types" don't see. Each new environment has real money costs way beyond the purchase price of the kit.

Just off the top of my head (and i'm not an expert on Apple Desktop Environments):
You need someone with support skills to manage the environment. You need tools to manage the mac, and ensure compliance with corporate policy. These tools probably don't integrate with what is currently implemented. There may be the hidden costs of potentially incompatible document formats (Office Documents), different feature sets on web browsers. The anti-virus software probably doesn't have a Mac version, so requires a one off purchase.

True story: Createive type got approval to buy a mac at one of our regional sites, via the wrong budget. Bought all MS Office and software and installed it herself. Outlook is essential to her work (and in this case, REALLY essential). Of course, not having cleared the purchase with IT, she didn't know that the current version of Outlook doesn't integrate natively with Exchange 2003. (Yes, I know IMAP works).

The "creative types" need to sit down and talk with IT. Not at IT. IT need to listen and understand the requirements. Creative Types need to wear ther cost of supporting a second discrete infrastructure.

Where did I read about "Infrastructure: The stuff everybody needs, but no one want to pay for"? Probably Dilbert.

Plenty of good reasons. Most centre around busines, rather than technical, reasons.

Compliance is one area that may force you. A quasi-independant internal and/or external audit for S-Ox compliance may point out unsupported O/S, development tools, language or hardware. Either the cash is found to upgrade, OR at least someone at a high level has to make a decision to "let it ride" and take responsibility for it.

Obviously, it's a CYA move,

I think the easiest way here is for the Vice-Chancellor/President/COO of the Universities to organise a boycott of those publishers.

Implicit in this is:
- Establish a new publishing house, for and by Universities
- Stop all puchases and subscriptions to those publishers
- A few phone calls to other universities to do the same.

Universities have enough financial clout to fight this one. Independant research organisations would not be able to afford NOT to change publishers.

Yes, there is a LOT of short term pain in taking these actions, but I'd say that the long term effects if this were to succeed and the remedy be granted in full, would cause chaos in research for decades.