January 18, 2012 at 9:57 am
All of our work is done via Citrix connection to company-owned desktop image on company owned resources. Our company does provide thin clients at the office, but work for work from home, you supply your own device (although we still have some legacy laptops in use). The Citrix system is locked down so that you cannot write to your local or copy to the virtual desktop from your local. At some point we discussed giving out laptop allowances and having all devices employee owned, but found that the thin clients were cheap and easy to manage. We are a small business, with one person dedicated to help desk functions, and he would have been responsible for troubleshooting all connection issues. It would have been too much for him to try troubleshoot X different devices/Y different OS/Z different browsers. We have a supported list of device, OS and browser, but if you go outside of that and can't get connected, you can drive in to the office to work. Blackberries are company owned though - and we can wipe them remotely if stolen/lost.
MWise
January 18, 2012 at 10:09 am
Fair points about hammers not wearing out, but we have tools that last longer than two years, we have subscription services, and we also get paid a lot more than many tradesman.
I'm not saying this is a perfect idea, but I think it has some merit, maybe in some ways. Think about both sides of the issue. Can a company just allow us $40/mo a let us choose our own cell phone? They can easily do routing from internal numbers these days.
Should they let us provide a laptop, with a VM boot image and we control the hardware? Should they provide all the software in the VM, and then we merely provide the vehicle to run it, choosing what we want?
There are definitely issues, security, minimal specs, and even insurance. If it breaks at work, who pays for it?
I don't even know that I'd want to do it, though in some sense I have at some companies, providing my own laptop for items and have a desktop at work.
January 18, 2012 at 11:34 am
Eric M Russell (1/18/2012)
GSquared (1/18/2012)
Eric M Russell (1/18/2012)
fahey.jonathan (1/18/2012)
In most professions, the "tools" do not become obsolete in two years. The screwdriver I made 25 years ago still works in every flathead screw in my house. The wrench (... sorry, "spanner" ...) I inherited from my Dad still works on all modern nuts.Try that with any computer equipment, hardware or software.
As a developer, the only tools I need are SSMS and a connection to SQL Server; 3rd party tools or special hardware has never been essential to what I do. It's not something I would need to take with me to another job.
In the information technology industry, a professional's "tools" are really more his or her technical skills, business knowledge, and certifications; not so much the client side tech gadgets or software. When we get layed off or walk away from a job, no one need to "give us the sack", it's already in our heads.
I think Steve is also including the hardware that SSMS runs on as part of the toolset. After all, SSMS without a computer, is just a bunch of reflective patterns on a mylar-coating on a plastic disk.
If a new hire, wether it's a developer or a carpenter, shows up at the job site without their hardware, they can always borrow from somone else. I think most corporations have empty cubicles and idle workstations these days. It's the toolset inside our head that the employer is most interested in.
I completely agree that the main tool in this trade is our knowledge. But Steve was asking what our reaction would be if it became common for employers to expect you to show up with your own laptop, et al, instead of providing you with one. No, the currently don't, which seems to be your point (correct me if I'm misreading you), but that ignores the hypothetical which is the basis of the editorial in the first place.
Would you feel it was wrong/right/indifferent if future employers expected you to show up ready to work, only needing a place to sit. You bring the computer you'll use, and have a choice about what it is. Want to work from a tablet? Go for it. Prefer to lug a desktop pc from job to job? Your call. Want a Linux-powered laptop? It's your laptop, have whatever OS you want on it. Have SSMS on it? Fine. Prefer to type your commands into the command prompt? Suit yourself. Just so long as you get the job done and don't violate any necessary security rules, who cares what tools you use?
What would you think of a workplace that operated that way, instead of having cubes with spare workstations in them for you to use?
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 18, 2012 at 12:02 pm
GSquared (1/18/2012)
Eric M Russell (1/18/2012)
GSquared (1/18/2012)
Eric M Russell (1/18/2012)
fahey.jonathan (1/18/2012)
In most professions, the "tools" do not become obsolete in two years. The screwdriver I made 25 years ago still works in every flathead screw in my house. The wrench (... sorry, "spanner" ...) I inherited from my Dad still works on all modern nuts.Try that with any computer equipment, hardware or software.
As a developer, the only tools I need are SSMS and a connection to SQL Server; 3rd party tools or special hardware has never been essential to what I do. It's not something I would need to take with me to another job.
In the information technology industry, a professional's "tools" are really more his or her technical skills, business knowledge, and certifications; not so much the client side tech gadgets or software. When we get layed off or walk away from a job, no one need to "give us the sack", it's already in our heads.
I think Steve is also including the hardware that SSMS runs on as part of the toolset. After all, SSMS without a computer, is just a bunch of reflective patterns on a mylar-coating on a plastic disk.
If a new hire, wether it's a developer or a carpenter, shows up at the job site without their hardware, they can always borrow from somone else. I think most corporations have empty cubicles and idle workstations these days. It's the toolset inside our head that the employer is most interested in.
I completely agree that the main tool in this trade is our knowledge. But Steve was asking what our reaction would be if it became common for employers to expect you to show up with your own laptop, et al, instead of providing you with one. No, the currently don't, which seems to be your point (correct me if I'm misreading you), but that ignores the hypothetical which is the basis of the editorial in the first place.
Would you feel it was wrong/right/indifferent if future employers expected you to show up ready to work, only needing a place to sit. You bring the computer you'll use, and have a choice about what it is. Want to work from a tablet? Go for it. Prefer to lug a desktop pc from job to job? Your call. Want a Linux-powered laptop? It's your laptop, have whatever OS you want on it. Have SSMS on it? Fine. Prefer to type your commands into the command prompt? Suit yourself. Just so long as you get the job done and don't violate any necessary security rules, who cares what tools you use?
What would you think of a workplace that operated that way, instead of having cubes with spare workstations in them for you to use?
"Just so long as you get the job done and don't violate any necessary security rules, ..."
Ay, there's the rub... I would not want to be a security guy that has to support a dozen operating systems. I know, it is not my playpen, but how would I know whether they are up to date with security patches? And that is just a start.
BTW, it might be interesting to add Xbox as one of the acceptable platforms... 🙂
January 18, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Revenant (1/18/2012)
BTW, it might be interesting to add Xbox as one of the acceptable platforms... 🙂
And Kinect? I need a bigger office, with room to "code"
January 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm
XBox, abacus, post-IT notes, whatever you want to use, if it gets the job done.
There would definitely be security issues with something like this. Would the cost of implementing handlings for them be offset by the savings of not having to provide hardware to devs, admins, et al? Would take some studies with some real numbers to find out. Would it also require an increase in pay to devs, et al, to offset the cost to them for having to provide tools themselves? That's been asked, but ROI suggestions on it haven't been answered.
The actual business cost/advantage is impossible to accurately calculate at this time, and I think that's what it would really boil down to. But before that could even be considered, someone would have to find out if the pros most affected by it would even be willing to work that way. Which is what Steve just did. And reactions were all over the place (vague/definite, sequitur/non, pro/con, to name at least 3 dimensions on them).
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 18, 2012 at 1:07 pm
milzs (1/18/2012)
I have seven development PCs sitting here at my desk, including a "souped-up" one that cost over $5K. Add in a 21" monitor, a ScanSnap scanner, and a Cybex Avocent 8-port KVM switch and my hardware costs are pretty high. Each box also has a suite of software on it. I could never afford to provide all that. This is a US government organization, so I don't think the original buy-your-own-stuff concept would ever apply, but just saying...
Oooo... touched a raw nerve there. The government gets the nice stuff because it's "someone else's money" (mine and yours).
Don't expect to see that one change 🙂
Peter Trast
Microsoft Certified ...(insert many literal strings here)
Microsoft Design Architect with Alexander Open Systems
January 18, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Peter Trast (1/18/2012)
milzs (1/18/2012)
I have seven development PCs sitting here at my desk, including a "souped-up" one that cost over $5K. Add in a 21" monitor, a ScanSnap scanner, and a Cybex Avocent 8-port KVM switch and my hardware costs are pretty high. Each box also has a suite of software on it. I could never afford to provide all that. This is a US government organization, so I don't think the original buy-your-own-stuff concept would ever apply, but just saying...Oooo... touched a raw nerve there. The government gets the nice stuff because it's "someone else's money" (mine and yours).
Don't expect to see that one change 🙂
It depends on the agency, the department, the project, and the budget year. I worked as a contractor on a project for a federal agency once, and I definately didn't see any expensive IT hardware sitting around on people's desk. There were a lot of people billing time though.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
January 18, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/18/2012)
Fair points about hammers not wearing out, but we have tools that last longer than two years, we have subscription services, and we also get paid a lot more than many tradesman.I'm not saying this is a perfect idea, but I think it has some merit, maybe in some ways. Think about both sides of the issue. Can a company just allow us $40/mo a let us choose our own cell phone? They can easily do routing from internal numbers these days.
Should they let us provide a laptop, with a VM boot image and we control the hardware? Should they provide all the software in the VM, and then we merely provide the vehicle to run it, choosing what we want?
There are definitely issues, security, minimal specs, and even insurance. If it breaks at work, who pays for it?
I don't even know that I'd want to do it, though in some sense I have at some companies, providing my own laptop for items and have a desktop at work.
I'm not sure about the 2 years point. We do have to invest in new tools, but I find it's more like a 5-year lifecycle.
Sure we get paid more, but an okay workman's toolkit can cost as little as $30 for something that'll last about a year. $30/year over a 5 year cycle is only $150. That's the timespan in which an IT pro would reasonably need to shell out at least the cost of 1 laptop for any of these concepts to work. That's about $800 these days, more if you want one you can load serious VMs and versions of SQL Server onto, but let's call it $800 for these purposes. That's a little more than 5X the tool cost for a worker using the cheapest tools available. We make more. Do we make 400% more? No.
For a simple comparison, I ran .NET devs vs construction carpenters in the Tampa, FL, market. $65k/yr for the dev, $41k/yr for the carpenter, assuming level II skills for each. Per salary.com. Construction carpentry is entry-level work and would need to provide the least expensive toolkit for the worker. Expert welders, machinists, electricians, master plumbers, finish carpenters (fine cabinetry, finish woodwork), all get paid a lot more than that (and definitely earn it, if they're good at their work). In many cases, a lot more than even top-flight DBAs (and we DBAs get paid more than devs in most cases). And they pay a lot less (over time) for their tools. Sure, a good toolkit can run into the hundreds or even thousands of dollars, but that amortizes over decades or even generations, not over a 3-5 year schedule.
So I really don't think it's entirely comparable, apples:apples, to compare bringing a toolbelt, hardhat, and good boots to work, to bringing a laptop, VMs, and software tools to work.
The question shouldn't be how does it compare. The question should be, what are the benefits and drawbacks to us and to our employers.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
January 18, 2012 at 3:01 pm
I have no problem RDP'ing into my desktop at work. Then my work stuff can stay at work, and I don't have to worry about the responsibilities and repercussions of having work data and materials on my personal device(s) if they happen to get misappropriated by someone else.
What if they gave me a subsidy for my cell phone bill instead of giving me a Blackberry? I'd much rather have the Blackberry, even if it means having two devices instead of one. And then I don't have to worry about sending a work-inappropriate msg accidentally through the work email account on my cell phone.
I like having a bit of separation between my work and the rest of my life.
January 18, 2012 at 3:02 pm
GSquared (1/18/2012)
So I really don't think it's entirely comparable, apples:apples, to compare bringing a toolbelt, hardhat, and good boots to work, to bringing a laptop, VMs, and software tools to work.The question shouldn't be how does it compare. The question should be, what are the benefits and drawbacks to us and to our employers.
Not entirely comparable, but comparable. I'd think employers would supply the VMs, so I wouldn't see the entire cost borne by employees.
The question, though, is what you've stated. Is it worth it to us and employers? Not sure, but it's worth looking at.
January 18, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Just to change track a little. It's your hard-earned post-tax money going on software. What would you get as your base set and why?
January 18, 2012 at 4:36 pm
David.Poole (1/18/2012)
Just to change track a little. It's your hard-earned post-tax money going on software. What would you get as your base set and why?
I do not know where you live, but in North America and EU the tools that you cal legally claim you need to make your living are tax deductible. Meaning, you may be buying with your post-tax dollars today, but wou will get back the tax in the next tax period.
January 18, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Revenant (1/18/2012)
David.Poole (1/18/2012)
Just to change track a little. It's your hard-earned post-tax money going on software. What would you get as your base set and why?I do not know where you live, but in North America and EU the tools that you cal legally claim you need to make your living are tax deductible. Meaning, you may be buying with your post-tax dollars today, but wou will get back the tax in the next tax period.
I do this for a number of items every year. I buy my own printer, laptop, monitor(s), etc. as I see fit, no reimbursement from RG, and deduct them on my taxes. They are essentially pre-tax purchases, just delayed on my refund
January 19, 2012 at 6:50 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/18/2012)
GSquared (1/18/2012)
So I really don't think it's entirely comparable, apples:apples, to compare bringing a toolbelt, hardhat, and good boots to work, to bringing a laptop, VMs, and software tools to work.The question shouldn't be how does it compare. The question should be, what are the benefits and drawbacks to us and to our employers.
Not entirely comparable, but comparable. I'd think employers would supply the VMs, so I wouldn't see the entire cost borne by employees.
The question, though, is what you've stated. Is it worth it to us and employers? Not sure, but it's worth looking at.
Got a cost:benefit analysis on that, or just a gut feeling?
Would you still think the employer should provide a VM with software tools, if not doing so meant they could pay the average dev/DBA significantly more per year in salary?
If a prospective employer said, "We can't budget any hardware or software for your position as DBA, but we'll give you a desk in a cubicle, a wireless network connection into our domain, and $3,000 per year more than your asking price. You bring your own chair, any furnishings other than the desk, computer, software, etc. There are rules regarding security measures you have to take before the domain will accept a connection. Will you take the job?" What would you say? How about $5k/year more.
The question then isn't, "Would you do it?" The question becomes, "How much extra per year would it take for you to do it?"
Keep in mind, the monetary cost of the tools they're providing is only part of what they pay. They also have to have accountants account for those expenses, administrators track software licensing compliance, managers spend time evaluating purchase requests and budgets, executives analyzing budgets and ROIs, for all of these things. Those are all indirect costs associated with the employer providing the tools. If employees provided their own, aspects of those would either disappear or simplify. How much would that be worth to an employer? How about if they don't administer desktop computers at all, just servers? What would the savings for the company be if your support was limited to getting you connected to the network, and keeping that connection secure? How much would that save in administration, support payroll, et al?
There's going to be a balancing point on those two thing: savings for company that they can pass on as salary, and willingness to deal with supplying your own tools. There may or may not be a "sweet spot" where everyone involved would say, "definitely yes!" Analyzing that is a complex thing, but might be worth it. Who knows?
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 52 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply