Depends on the situation. You're describing a small project where I would get called in to design a project from start to finish and have some input into the tool used.

On a larger project, the decision on the tool has been made, maybe because of corporate standards. And the company is interested in bringing in people because they are short-handed for the amount of work currently on the drawing board. But there's still room for individual creativity.

I've never considered myself a glorified programmer. I've had interviews at places where it's obvious that's what their looking for. When that realization has hit home, I lost interest in pursuing the job.

>I noticed an interesting change in several .NETters, some time ago, their preach was about "The best tool for the job", now this is the second time someone defends .NET by saying it was the client's choice.
>
>Now, if you (not as in you Perry, but a generic you) are a consultant, I would think you "give professional advice or services", as such, shouldn't you advice your client about which one is the best tool for the job? Sometimes it might be .NET, sometimes it might not be it, but if you need to "support whatever tools your client want to use", aren't you (again, not talking about you) just a glorified programmer?
>
>
>>When you work as a consultant, such as Kevin or I and many, many others here, you must learn to support whatever tools your clients want to use. If 80% of the clients in your area require dotnet developers, you have 2 choices, learn dotnet or find another career.