From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:3ee357cd{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>
>>Politics.
>>
>>I've seen this before & it's usually coz some bigwig uses something
>>which exchange has.
>
>
> That's not politics, that's called "a requirement" and it's
something the
> computer people are supposed to accept and say "no problem, we can make it
> do that". If they want to use something that doesn't have the feature the
> big wig wants, then their solution is what you call "lacking".
>

Nope. Quick example:

We set up a postfix/imap inc web front end (inc scheduling) box as an
exchange replacement. 2 sales & marketing execs had  their schedules in
exchange. They bitched & moaned & did everything in their power to
stop the change over simply because of this. The solution required them to
spend a couple of hours moving their appointments over to the new system
but they prefered to spend many hours complaining etc instead.

In the case of one, he was the person who had recomended & pushed for
exchange & felt it was a slight upon him personally where in reality
the cust was simply trying to drop his IT spend (& this was in 1999
before the tech recession).

& yes it really was that simple. People get attached to what they know &
people invest their personal "authority" in IT solutions &
any even rational attempt to change that is a direct affront to their
personal "authority". This is where it becomes political.

The main bod actually became quite poisonous over the whole thing up to the
point where the owner had to call him in to give him 2 choices one of which
was to find a new job.

To me it was bizarre but to him it was the equivalent of plucking the tail
feathers from a peacock.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4