Hmm... While one certainly does not need a check to use an open source software, one does need to get a permission to use company resources to implement the project (people, to be precise) which involves submitting certain documentation known as project charter, or project specs. For those of us who is not clear on what "write a check" means, let me be more specific - "write check" = "allow usage of company resources in a particular project". I am also not sure how familiar some people may be with the way software projects work, but projects have to be approved by project stakeholders and some of the steakholders may be held back by seemingly "not serious" name of a particular piece of software involved. It is sad that software might be judged by its name, but it does happen.
Personal note: Killjoe, i have not risen/floated up a septic tank (please, do not confuse your workplace and lifestyle with workplaces and lifestyles of others), but i have earned my status by working 10-12 hours a day 6 days a week. In addition, I do not believe that slashdot should be used for expressions of personal frustrations with one's (personal, professional and/or sexual) life. Best of luck on resolving your issues, killjoe. I hope you understand if i do not respond to your next session of word diahrrea caused by personality faults. There are support lines that might be able to help you.
I'm with you on that one. Well, i'm a CTO, and i don't care about the names, but sometimes the initiative starts "from the bottom", so to speak, and sometimes needs to be run by not-so-open-minded people who happen to write the check. Unless the person wants to start company-wide project of opening minds prior to initiating something like "Ultra Monkey", he/she has to do something about the name. In this very case, i'd call the software "UM", i guess, if i were working in a "good old corporation" and had to submit an official project proposal, and stick to "UM" in all latter documentation.
The problem with projects like this is the fact that they are relatively unknown. While Google, RedHat and others are names you can find all over the WSJ and NYTimes, projects like this are not known to general public, including the gray-haired conservative guys in financial departments that are writing the checks.
At least those a my thoughts.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... While one certainly does not need a check to use an open source software, one does need to get a permission to use company resources to implement the project (people, to be precise) which involves submitting certain documentation known as project charter, or project specs. For those of us who is not clear on what "write a check" means, let me be more specific - "write check" = "allow usage of company resources in a particular project". I am also not sure how familiar some people may be with the way software projects work, but projects have to be approved by project stakeholders and some of the steakholders may be held back by seemingly "not serious" name of a particular piece of software involved. It is sad that software might be judged by its name, but it does happen.
Personal note: Killjoe, i have not risen/floated up a septic tank (please, do not confuse your workplace and lifestyle with workplaces and lifestyles of others), but i have earned my status by working 10-12 hours a day 6 days a week. In addition, I do not believe that slashdot should be used for expressions of personal frustrations with one's (personal, professional and/or sexual) life.
Best of luck on resolving your issues, killjoe. I hope you understand if i do not respond to your next session of word diahrrea caused by personality faults. There are support lines that might be able to help you.
I'm with you on that one. Well, i'm a CTO, and i don't care about the names, but sometimes the initiative starts "from the bottom", so to speak, and sometimes needs to be run by not-so-open-minded people who happen to write the check. Unless the person wants to start company-wide project of opening minds prior to initiating something like "Ultra Monkey", he/she has to do something about the name. In this very case, i'd call the software "UM", i guess, if i were working in a "good old corporation" and had to submit an official project proposal, and stick to "UM" in all latter documentation. The problem with projects like this is the fact that they are relatively unknown. While Google, RedHat and others are names you can find all over the WSJ and NYTimes, projects like this are not known to general public, including the gray-haired conservative guys in financial departments that are writing the checks. At least those a my thoughts.