Re: PostgreSQL mission statement?

Jim Mercer wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:45:45PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > Jim Mercer wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 09:14:03PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > > Jim Mercer wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:41:30PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > > > > A mission statement is like a tie.
> > > > > who on the list wears ties?
> > > > How many people who make IT decisions wear ties?
> > > too many.
> > I'm sorry I started this thread.
>
> don't be sorry.
>
> i'm not big on wearing the corporate suit, be it physically, or figuratively.

Trust me, nor am I. I haven't warn a suit professionally since the '80s.

>
> that's my opinion, and i'm stating it.
>
> your opinion differs, and that's fine.

Don't be so sure.

>
> i've had to do the corporate "mission statement" dance, as well as a bunch
> of other hokey crap that didn't matter squat to the bottom line due to the
> fact that the execs read some magazine article or attended some Tony Robbins
> -esque motivational session.

Yes I know. Been there done that.

>
> when i hear "mission statement" and "quality circle" and "internal customer",
> i cringe.

Ditto.

>
> if the corporate management doesn't want to buy into the Open Source concept,
> fuck 'em.

He is where we differ. There is merit in displaying an amount of understanding
of the corporate personality. I am not a corporate type, but I understand that
there are people that are, and to promote PostgreSQL, we need to reach them.

It is not selling out to use chopsticks at a chinese dinner, it is following
custom. A mission statement is similar. These people are brainwashed to look at
the mission statement. Having one for them to look at is not a bad idea.
>
> i've had a number of installations where due to management panic to get
> something working, it was implemented using Open Source. Only to have
> a perfectly good system replaced with "real software" when management
> finds out 6 months later that it is using Open Source.

Presenting a corporate aware culture will help them.

> i have had successes in getting Open Source into corporate environments,
> but only after battling mega-politics with CIO/CFO and MSCE IT managers
> who only want to see Microsoft or Sun Solaris solutions.

Been there done that.

> we did a project using FreeBSD and Samba to replace a number of highly
> unstable NT file/print servers.

Again, been there, done that.

> recently, some consultants (friends of the managing partners) said that
> it was a bad idea to use "Public Domain software that was full of bugs
> and highly insecure".

Pure FUD, of course.

> when we pointed out that the servers hadn't rebooted in 160 days, and
> that they were protected by both RFC1918 addressing and a firewall, the
> consultants backed off a bit.

Most consultants (not me :-) are idiots.

> then they returned spouting the same "full of bugs and highly insecure" crap.

They are uninformed, or worse, believe what Microsoft says.

> now management is going to have them re-implement the network using the
> latest NT stuff.

Fight it! Is there any evidence that will help you?

> this is a long winded way of saying that my feeling is the type of MBA
> CFO/CIO that is impressed by a mission statement, is probably not going
> to buy into technology that isn't listed on NASDAQ.

That is where the fight lies!! We have to make believers out of them! We have
superior technology, we have superior quality.

Microsoft and Oracle have billions of dollars in marketing, all we have is
ourselves.
>
> so, what's the harm in having one?
>
> probably not much, but to me it smells of corporate bullshit.

Corporate bullshit or not, it is a fact of life and a custom that we open
source people need to accept. We write the best shit, we do the best work. We
are "more professional" and dedicated than most professionals. Our quality is
usually much better than proprietary our counterparts. Unfortunately business
types do not understand us. If we are unable to reach the people who would
decide to use our stuff, then it is our fault for failure.