Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Bug

Failed Win XP Upgrade Wipes Out UK Government Agency 731

Lurker McLurker writes "The BBC and the Register report that the UK Government's Department for Work and Pensions attempted to upgrade seven PCs from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, and ended up with BSODs on over 60,000 machines. I wonder if the National Health Service is regretting awarding Microsoft a £500 million contract now." The Guardian also has a good story.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Failed Win XP Upgrade Wipes Out UK Government Agency

Comments Filter:
  • by bairy ( 755347 ) * on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:32AM (#10924676) Homepage
    If something is actually working right (and it's rare), change it!
    I can imagine it now
    Intern: "Sir, Microsoft have bought out Windows XP Service Pack 2. It's had numerous bug reports of dying pcs and software not working anymore. THIS is the time to upgrade to Windows XP, then upgrade to SP2 because windowsupdate won't stop bugging the hell out of us until we do!"
    Boss: "You mean we could cock something up, and it might not even be our fault for a change?! Lets pay someone vast amounts of money to do it!"

    The Gaurdian reports it was a week long outage. Now, I may be completely wrong here, but surely all they had to do was restore those pcs back to their previous Windows 2000 state using the daily backups they do... I mean, it's only common sense to do backups on such a critical syst...oh, wait, nevermind.

    </cynical>

  • *sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)

    by turgid ( 580780 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:34AM (#10924697) Journal
    The thing is, this sort of thing is expected and accepted by the UK public sector. They'll just find a scapegoat and keep on buying Microsoft. The sad thing is, that's my tax money.
  • Come on now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mick Ohrberg ( 744441 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .grebrho.kcim.> on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:35AM (#10924704) Homepage Journal
    Incompentent admins can turn any minor upgrade to a catastrophic failure. Don't blame M$ for this one unless there are irrefutable proof that the admins did everything by the numbers.
  • Local Government (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bloke in a box ( 781163 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:38AM (#10924753) Homepage
    I work in a local government authority myself.

    Although we have several xp boxes (mainly used by my development team (along with Windows 2k Pro ones)), there is no way this IT department is going to roll out XP across the entire authority (approximately 400 machines) until at least Mid quarter 2005, there are far far too many problems to even contemplate it.

    Heck, half the staff haven't even figured out the difference between a wallpaper and screensaver yet, yet alone giving them more fancy gadgets.
  • Contractor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HogGeek ( 456673 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:41AM (#10924776)
    I know we all like to blame Microsoft when these types of things happen, bu this appears to be a major fubar by the EDS people.

    The installation and update of operating systems is so easy any more, a blind one armed monkey masturbating could do it.

    I've worked with EDS people, and the one armed monkey would be a godsend compared to most of them that I've had the "fortune" of working with...

  • Re:Too slow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Apathetic1 ( 631198 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:44AM (#10924803) Journal
    It was EDS that screwed it up. I can't say I'm surprised. For once I find it hard to blame Microsoft - rolling an XP patch out onto a Windows 2000 machine (or 60000) will have the predictable effect of hosing the system. Given what I know about EDS (I worked there for two summers) I don't think running Linux would have helped.
  • Re:Come on now (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:45AM (#10924820)
    How come an XP update can be pushed into a win2k box in the first place? Shouldnt there be some basic checks in place?
  • Re:EDS again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by supersnail ( 106701 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:47AM (#10924832)

    Because Accenture is the other choice!

    This sort of cockup would have been impossable with the ex Arther Anderson crowd. They would still be struggling to get the shrink wrap off the CDs without wrinkling thier suits.

    Seriously the problem is government procurement procedures. The contract goes to the lowest bidder and a record of past f****ups is not taken into account.

  • Re:EDS again (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:47AM (#10924835)
    Because, like an old Dilbert strip, it's all down to experience. The government puts the jobs out to tender, they get the tenders in and only EDS have any experience of large goverment IT projects and therefore are the only qualifying tender.
  • by Leonig Mig ( 695104 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:47AM (#10924836) Homepage Journal
    agreed this is more and EDS issue than a microsoft one.

  • by Lee_in_KC ( 816490 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:48AM (#10924842)

    I wish I could take one of you Linux "experts" up on your idea. "Here, upgrade these 2000 PCs, all of which are from different manufacturers and different configurations, to Linux. I need it done in the off hours and I need everything to work like it did before.".

    *crickets*

    Of course someone will reply and say "ok!" knowing it won't happen. It's not because I don't have the ability to make that decision but it's because I know better than to get real information/insight about IT from most /. posters.

    It's painfully obvious that a scant few here actually have a clue about running a business that relies on IT. It's more than ripping CDs and DVDs kids. Sure, the company that did the mistake is at fault but the problem is not in the chosen OS, it's in the chosen technicians and management.

  • by bentcd ( 690786 ) <bcd@pvv.org> on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:50AM (#10924870) Homepage
    If anything, this is the world crying out "what were you _thinking_ having a 60,000 unit network all running the same system???" and perhaps the world will wake up and realize that it _might_ be a good idea to mix systems a bit so that whatever happens to one system, you still have some significant percentage of the network still running.
    Doesn't anyone do risk analysis anymore?
  • by joshsnow ( 551754 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:52AM (#10924888) Journal
    from the reg article;

    "This patch caused the desktops to BSOD and made recovery rather tricky as they couldn't boot to pick any further patches or recalls. I gather that MS consultants have been flown in from the US to clear up the mess."

    So, even more of the money I pay in tax is being diverted to M$ then...
  • Re:Too slow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:52AM (#10924894) Homepage
    Actually, I tend to see this as potentially an opportunity for Microsoft to gain some excellent, and totally undeserved, *good* PR. The root cause of the problem seems to be that EDS erroneously pushed a Windows XP update out to Windows 2K desktops - hardly Microsoft's fault. Having got completely out of their depth (which isn't especially far out of the shallows given EDS' track record to date) EDS decided that it couldn't fix the problem and called in Microsoft.

    Now, assume Microsoft bails EDS out, and there is no reason why not, because you can bet they'll send a bunch of temps to every DWP office at EDS' expense if they have too. In a nutshell, Microsoft gets a PR coup: "We've just bailed out out a leading *cough* solution provider! Now imagine that had been, say, a Linux deployment... Who could EDS have called then?" Given the excellent grasp of PR, spin and FUD Microsoft has, I don't think this is going to help break the Microsoft stranglehold at all.

  • by turgid ( 580780 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:56AM (#10924930) Journal
    The bean-counters will find a way of "writing off" this debacle so it doesn't show up in TCO. Not that I'm bitter and cynical or anything....

    I once knew a bean-counter (quite senior) on nearly 3 times my engineer's salary. He was sat there in front of a spreadsheet adding up a column of numbers on a pocket calculator.

    Welcome to the UK Public Sector. That was your tax money.

  • Re:Uh-oh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:56AM (#10924932) Homepage Journal
    Everyone needs a second chance. And a third. And a fourth. And a fifth. And a ...

    I'm sure the government has perfectly good reasons for continuing to hand contracts to EDS. It's just probably not a reason they want to tell you because it involves (bribery|nepotism|stupidity|all of the above)

    Jedidiah.
  • Re:Another nail? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WebCrapper ( 667046 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:57AM (#10924944)
    What gets me is the idiots decided to upgrade all of the machines at once. Who, in their right mind, upgrades these types of systems all at once?
  • by ilyaa1 ( 831859 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @11:59AM (#10924956)
    OK, so let's see. Someone installs WinXP dll's on Win2K machines. Hmm, I wonder, how come those don't boot now?..

    It's true that Microsoft's robustness is rather mirage-like, but there's a thing called human error, and that can bring down any system. All the software did was follow human instructions, after all: that's why we need IT people with brains to decide who is doing what.

    However, PXE boot and a server with HDD images ready would've been helpful...
  • Re:Too slow. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sxooter ( 29722 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:02PM (#10924989)
    Really, I'd expect Microsoft to have designed the two very different operating systems to NOT take each other's patches. It couldn't have been that hard to do, just toss some identifier in there somewhere in the file and if XP sees a win2k id or vice versa, refude to install the update.

    It's still Microsoft's fault, because they designed a system that accepts updates for the wrong system, and after that update is installed, it's damned near impossible to back it out. EDS has fault here too, but let's face it, they couldn't have screwed the pooch nearly as well with a non-MS based system.
  • by orasio ( 188021 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:02PM (#10924994) Homepage
    Microsoft sells itself as easy to administer, what in management terms means that the systems are so /user friendly/ that any moron can administer them.
    So, admin stupidity can also be blamed on MS, it's part of the TCO studies that make the decision to buy MS.

    Aside from that, a point-and-click update cannot fail so miserably. A script made by the admin, of course should, because you can assume that someone smart (and bold) enoguh to make a little script should be responsible for their decisions. Some guy clicking checkboxes shouldn't be allowed by those means to break 60000 computers, through a /user friendly/ GUI program.
    GUIs for dummies should have enough checks to prevent such underiable effects, they have a sufficiently constrained domain to be able to do so. If the guy wanted to do a legal task that the tools dosnt' allow, he could always write some Visual Basic Script, and then he would be on his own. Bringing down an organization by mis-clicking checkboxes is responsability of the guy that provided the checkboxes, too.
  • by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:02PM (#10924995)
    "What happened to all the competent people??"

    They emigrated, most likely. One of the problems with incompetence is that it's self-reinforcing, the competent get more and more fed up with having to deal with incompetence all day and find something better to do with their time.
  • by rpozz ( 249652 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:03PM (#10925004)
    different manufacturers and different configurations

    You know that (re)installing Windows on a large number of systems of different types, for example when an upgrade fails, is a total fucking nightmare, yes?

    At least Linux comes with 99% of drivers pre-installed. With Windows you have to find them on the net first, then find some way of getting them to the target system (because you don't have a NIC driver, remember?).
  • Re:Too slow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Asic Eng ( 193332 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:04PM (#10925017)
    Now imagine that had been, say, a Linux deployment... Who could EDS have called then?

    They could have called Novell or IBM.

    Apart from that though - any setup can be screwed-up by an admin, no currently available OS can protect you from that. So for a TCO estimate at least we would have to look at the total loss due to screw-ups like this, and weigh them with the number of installations. Using a single data point can't be valid. That said, my gut feeling is that Linux provides considerably better TCO.

  • by Lev13than ( 581686 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:05PM (#10925026) Homepage
    They wanted that new version of Internet Explorer with the fancy built-in pop-up blocker.
    Looks like they got a deal; they got the version that also blocks viruses, worms, and abuse of Solitaire! ;)

    Writing article about Free iPod [tinyurl.com]. Please help out.


    They probably wanted to block assholes who disguise 'Free iPod' links in the sigs. 'TinyUrl' my ass. If you want an iPod, ask your parents to raise your allowance. Otherwise, I heartily encourage you to fuck off.
  • by DoctorMO ( 720244 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:06PM (#10925029)
    Don't worry knowing Linux and the IT of the public sector they'd have chmoded root to 777 long before any upgrade.
  • Re:Another nail? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by djfray ( 803421 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:06PM (#10925033) Homepage
    'Hopefully just another nail in Microsoft's coffin....' Buddy, you need to wake up and realize Microsoft aint going no where. Just like when faulty parts of cars kills tens of thousands of people a year(if not more), GM isn't going out of business. They are a force to be reckoned with. Microsoft is the same, and everyone needs to learn how to live with it, instead of constantly bitching about what wouldve happened to any leading OS, or software company, were Microsoft not in their place. Sheesh
  • by davesag ( 140186 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:08PM (#10925053) Homepage
    dude have you never heard of "The Peter Principle [wikipedia.org]". That bloke is probably being promoted right now.
  • by slashhax0r ( 579213 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:09PM (#10925056)
    Problem isn't the platform as much as the implementation. I'd say that someone bollocksed the whole thing up, which could be just as tragic rolling out a linux upgrade or whatever.

    We've got to educate the people spending our money on large computer systems to spend part of that money on more testing!
  • by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:11PM (#10925071)

    Read the article. EDS applied a patch intended to update 7 Windows XP boxes to 60,000 Windows 2000 machines. The TCO here applies to the contract to EDS, not the software.

    Yes. It's not like the upgrade could detect the version of the program it's being applied to, and only install if the version matches the version it is intended for. That is completely unheard of, and would be impossible technically.

    This was sarcasm, FYI.

    It's like saying that a prison guard intending to open one gate to let someone out accidentally opened all of the gates and then they blamed the door manufacturer.

    This situation is more analogous to a wrong signal causing the door to open and then jam. And yes, such a door manufacturer deserves to be blamed.

  • Re:Too slow. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Apathetic1 ( 631198 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:16PM (#10925107) Journal
    Microsoft can't help it if you force an XP update onto a Win2K machine using an automated tool. Trying to manually install a patch onto the wrong operating system WILL fail as it should.

    Somebody else in the thread mentioned this - if you overwrite your Linux kernel with a botched version, your system's hosed. If you didn't keep a backup, it's damned near impossible to back it out.

    Nobody can protect an incompetent admin from him / herself.
  • by brad3378 ( 155304 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:17PM (#10925117)
    What is an MP ?
  • by lxdbxr ( 655786 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:19PM (#10925132) Homepage
    EDS are preparing themselves to manage the UK national identity database and identity card scheme. This is one we could lobby our representatives on to ensure they do it right.

    This is one we should lobby our representatives on to ensure they don't do it at all [no2id.net]. The fact that they will piss away several billion quid of taxpayers money is by-the-by when there is no reason other than sheer control-freakery to want this database in the first place.

  • by bairy ( 755347 ) * on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:27PM (#10925201) Homepage
    I meant restore the 7 pcs they'd upgraded. I would assume the 60,000 died either because those 7 were feeding them, or because or an incompatibility with the upgrade. If you're upgrading ANYTHING that might affect anything else you should do a back up. So in both cases I would have thought a simple restore would have made everything happy again..

    or have I missed something?

  • by emrysk ( 787256 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:34PM (#10925248)
    ...but is there any actual evidence is was a Microsoft error? I like bashing Windows as much as the next guy, but it seems this is at least as likely to be a huge fumble by the admins.
  • by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:34PM (#10925250)
    This is an interesting question. Most large companies have at least a few gloriously incompetent people who really should have gone long ago but for whatever reason haven't.

    However, I don't know any reports which consider Total Cost of Ownership Assuming Your IT Department Is A Bunch of Blathering Idiots. Most seem to assume a certain degree of competence.

  • by KontinMonet ( 737319 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:35PM (#10925255) Homepage Journal
    They go over budget because when a project is accurately costed, some idiot manager somewhere goes beserk and says it must be done in time-(large chunk of time) and for cost-(managers' & directors' bonuses). Knowing this most s/w projects are unrealistically timed and funded. Anyway, EDS has right royally screwed up on all the big govt. projects yet the govt. continues to use them. Is that as a result of competence?
  • by BLAG-blast ( 302533 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:45PM (#10925363)
    Writing article about Free iPod [tinyurl.com]. Please help out.

    If you are seriously writing a article on free ipod crap why don't you link to a page that explains a bit about your project. Otherwise you're not different from the 12 year old kids you are internet begging for ipods (I'm assuming that your older than 12, could be a bad assumption).

    Will you give away the ipods you get, or will you keep them? With Xmas coming up there are a lot of poor childern out there who are going to get any much else other than AOL and Live linux CDs.....

    And for the record... the article is not going to have favorable things to say about the free ipod experience.

    Is you writting going to be bias from the start?

    Or are you writting about how the free-ipod fad is causing a lot of REALLY ANNOYING internet begging. "I want an ipod, please give up your privacy so I can have an ipod". Please note that "I want a free-ipod so I write bad things about free-ipods, please give your privacy so I can an ipod" is in no way any different.

    Oh wait, I've seen a post where you accuse somebody of being home from highschool, you're most likely 12 years old.

    Sheesh! Really... get a grip!

    Sheesh! Really... get a grip!

  • Re:Another nail? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by blowdart ( 31458 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:45PM (#10925367) Homepage
    Of course, one might wonder why the patch couldn't detect the version of the operating system to prevent this kind of trouble...

    The usual patches from WindowsUpdate do detect operating systems. If that was the case it looks like someone rolled their own patches (easy to do, you can extract the patches from the windowsupdate MSIs, then bundle them into 1 file) and didn't do an OS check.

  • by malkavian ( 9512 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:55PM (#10925475)
    They're probably using something like Novadigms's Radia. And instead of linking the correct 7 PCs, they linked to all of them (misconfigured group). In that case, it's not a case if installing a patch that is installed using the new mechanisms, the "Patch Manager" simply dumps the files to all the machines that connect up using it's client, and force an overwrite.

    Given, they should actually have an install script that checks the OS before it actually dumps the install package on there, but hey.

    Not normally an MS apologist, but this isn't really Microsoft's problem. It's the contracted company that made the update package failing to ascribe it to the right download group.

    So, the analogy. It's like some perfectly good system being installed, and someone presses the button marked 'open all doors' instead of simply open door 7.
    I don't see anyone really blaming the door manufacturer here (Microsoft or the contractors), although I'd hazard a guess that the person who skipped over the part of the process that said 'double check the groups you assign this patch to' will be sorely chastised...
  • Re:EDS again (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SonicBurst ( 546373 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:57PM (#10925502) Homepage
    I don't know anything about EDS, but I do know this: They could have done 100,000 projects/upgrades flawlessly and you'd never know it, but let them screw up once (or however many times this company has) and you'll never hear the end of it.

    Please realize that I'm not defending them. I'm just pointing out that, as someone who works in IT, management never sees it when things go flawlessly, but they will not hesitate to throw your ass to the wolves should something go wrong.
  • Re:RTFA! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @12:58PM (#10925507)
    The vast majority of tools that do these rollouts dont roll out the patches as supplied by the vendor. The patches are applied to a machine in a known state, and then that machine is scanned by the tool to see whats changed. This changeset is whats rolled out. And yes, jsut tried it, XP SP2 does indeed refuse to install on a Windows2000 system.
  • by b00m3rang ( 682108 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @01:00PM (#10925522)
    Upgrades NEVER work! Not for Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Longhorn, whatever! It will never be a good idea to try and replace a MS OS without doing a clean install.

    This is first day stuff.
  • Windows? Or EDS? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by reverendslappy ( 672515 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @01:06PM (#10925581)
    Without any specific details on the failure or what exactly happened, it seems like this is a huge admin error. My guess is they're using something like Altiris to do their builds, and if an admin were to accidentally "drop" the package meant for the the test group on to the production group, wham-o... every PC starts installing a build that probably isn't meant for them, and won't work. And you can imagine how that would go.

    As much as I'm sure the zealots among us would like to make this seem like a Windows failure, it looks like it's more of an example of how outsourcing leads to disconnected, incompetent, and unmotivated IT staff. And that, of course, leads to mishaps like this.

    Either way, if you work for a company that brings EDS in house in any way, drop your shit and run. And don't look back. The flash could be blinding.
  • by mikechant ( 729173 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @01:13PM (#10925639)
    The public sector in the UK is nothing more than unemployment benefit for the middle classes.

    In my experience (having worked for both) in terms of inefficieny and stupidity, there's only one thing worse than the British Public sector and that's the British Private sector.
    My company used to be part of a large public sector concern and was sold off. Since then we seem to spend nearly of our time/money:

    Changing company logo and name every 6-12 months
    Adding a new problem management system which we have to learn every 6 months (we currently have about 5 each of which was supposed to replace all the others).
    Paying huge bonuses to upper managent.
    Paying huge car allowances to middle management including those who refuse to drive.
    Not giving any rises under the so-called performance related pay scheme for 4 years despite meeting profit targets because all the money has gone on the above 2 items.
    Making skilled people redundant then recruiting at vast expense people with the same skills 2 months later.
    Making skilled people redundant then reemploying them at twice the pay as contractors for the next 2 years because they're still needed.
    Repeatedly shuffling kit from datacenter to datacenter around the country at vast expense and disruption to our customers.
    Ordering expensive buffets for management meetings , 95%+ of which get thrown away.
    Managers having a schedule involving meetings all over the country which means that they spend about 25 hours out of 40 driving.
    Managers refusing to use video-conferencing for meetings even in the light of the above.

    How many of these things happened when I was in the public sector? Virtually none. We didn't have the money to throw around on such things. We were forced to be efficient.

    Also if this private sector company I'm referring to was atypically inefficient, presumably it would do so badly it would collapse or be taken over. So this implies that many private sector companies are like this.

    It's very easy to slag off the public sector if you use stereotypes, generalizations and distortions.
  • by dunstan ( 97493 ) <dvavasour@i e e . o rg> on Friday November 26, 2004 @02:01PM (#10926049) Homepage
    Interesting set of threads ... "it's not Microsoft's fault that EDS pushed the update out wrongly".

    The fundamental error here is deep seated and architectural - they have 80,000 user interface devices which are stateful. By putting the wrong device on the desktop they have set this situation up.

    In the olden days when clerks in government agencies used green screens this problem wouldn't happen. If a green screen failed, it would be replaced as a FRU. Today's equivalent is something like a SunRay - the user interface device holds only enough configuration to bootstrap itself and, again, is a FRU.

    The situation at the DWP is different: the user interface device is a stateful device which holds configuration itself, and requires this configuration to be consistent before it gets enough connecticity to be remotely managed. The toolkits discussed, which are used to push config around these UI devices, are probably most excellent, but there should be no need for this sort of mularky.

    So while I don't necessarily blame Microsoft for this incident, I do blame them for creating a monoculture where this sort of architecture is deployed. I expect the trials underway in government using SunRay devices as the user interface will be watched with more interest after this debacle.

    A final question - how on earth do DWP recover 60,000 unbootable PCs?
  • by mpe ( 36238 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @02:18PM (#10926169)
    This isn't Microsoft that ballsed it up, nor is it inherently the fault of DWP. Chances are it's an underpaid sysadmin somewhere who hit the wrong checkbox when rolling out the patch.

    If someone can manage this by selecting the "wrong checkbox" then the system is broken by design.
    Microsoft sell a complex system with the claim idiots can administer it. The DWP employ/contract idiots to administer a complex, but vital, system. Niether of these are "innocent parties".
  • by bravado2112 ( 627937 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @02:38PM (#10926318) Homepage
    Hate to say it...but depending upon what industry you're in you may have little or no choice on what operating system you can use. Case point...I'm an IT worker for a small architectural firm. Guess what! There is not one mainstream architechural program that is widely used that isn't on Windows! So in order to run Bentley Microstation or Autodesk AutoCAD, two of the top architectural programs out there, you have to have Windows. Sorry...no Microstation or AutoCAD for Mac or Linux! Might be an alternative out there...but is it as powerful and compatible as the top two that are widely used? Probably not. So...the problem isn't a question of just the operating system...it's a problem of whether the software companies are designing their software to run on operating systems other than Windows! Till Bentley get's their head our of their ass and starts distributing a version of Microstation for OSX or Linux...my company is stuck using Windows! Nuff said!
  • by stevelinton ( 4044 ) <sal@dcs.st-and.ac.uk> on Friday November 26, 2004 @02:55PM (#10926460) Homepage
    Yes, shit happens, and it happened in a very large way here. It doesn't reflect on EDS as a company, it doesn't reflect on Microsot products either. Localised error. That's all. Nothing to see here. Except some faulty machines.


    It's this willingness to say "Localised error. That's all. Nothing to see here" that gives IT it's bad reputation. With properly designed processes and appropriate tools, localised error cannot have catastrophic consequences. In a system like this, I can see no excuse for pushing something out to 60K desktops in a nightly update without at least one, and probably both of:

    a) Pushing it out to (say) 600 representative desktops a night or two before and monitoring

    b) Having a cast-iron, regularly practiced and tested, process for pulling it back again.

    Look at somewhere like SEI who make the Space shuttle flight control software. It cannot go wrong and it doesn't. Why, because they have processes! There are checks and testing and simulation and code walk-throughs and whatever, and if a problem NEARLY makes it through, and is caught in late testing or whatever, there are processes to look back and see how it got that far and make sure that the processes are improved so it doesn't happen again. The process writes the software and the people carry out the various roles prescribed by the process. There are processes for monitoring and improving the processes, etc.

  • by eldapo ( 804410 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:17PM (#10926616) Homepage
    The Holy Grail of IT is to reduce bugets by lowering payroll. Because Windows is really easy to install and maintain, the sales pitch goes, you can hire less skilled (expensive) people to do the work. Problem is, Windows isn't so easy to install and maintain anymore, if it ever was. Even before Active Directory, keeping 4,000 or more Windows systems up to date with the latest patches was a challenge. AD introduces even greater complexity, requiring the admins that ride herd over it have *at least* the same skill level as their brother (or sister) UNIX admins (I'd argue they actually need to be *more* skilled). Of course EDS and others have stubbornly refused to recognize this, and so you have foobars like the one reported in the original article here.
  • by CmdrGravy ( 645153 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:19PM (#10926632) Homepage
    Radia is a bloomin' pain in the neck, the last place I worked used Radia and it was horrible ( Radia it's self is possibly very nice and useful, it's the way it was implemented that was annoying ).

    Company polict stated that everyone should always turn off there PC's when they left for the day and you'd get moaned at if you didn't. The Radia team told everyone they must keep their PC's on at all times but this was never company policy.

    Every morning it would take 20mins or so for Radia to install all the nights patches and reboot the PC's a couple of times. At random times during the day it would also reboot your PC automatically for you if you didn't notice what was happening quickly enough to stop it.

    Various PC's were being used as servers but not offically classed as such ( due to the excessive hurt and pain involved in that process ) and they also would reboot themselves randomly cause outages on whatever they were doing.

    Some PC's were still Windows 95 and Radia would never manage to install anything on them, just keep crashing, rebooting indefinitely.

    In the end I managed to delete enough of it that it stopped working and gave me some peace of mind.

    I think the lesson here is not to just deploy cool new tools willy nilly without assessing their place in your working practices.
  • Re:FAT CLIENT (Score:3, Insightful)

    by adolfojp ( 730818 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:20PM (#10926639)
    I personally like web services with rich clients. The business logic stays centralized and the people have a "better" experience on their desktops. I still don't understand the advantage that one would get by upgrading from W2K to WXP in a work environment.

    Cheers,
    Adolfo
  • by skids ( 119237 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @03:32PM (#10926725) Homepage
    OK, fair enough. A lot of the people I worked with when I was in a government position do deserve that.

    But a lot of them don't. I would say most state employees work their asses off doing pointless things, rather than screwing off. The problem is more with upper management than with the rank and file... though the problem does bleed over into the lower level employees because, after all, how long can you pour your energy into a task that you know only is neccesary because incompetent managers fail to streamline the operation and give you more real, productive work, before you start to take the job much less seriously?

    So those petty state officials who shirk work do so as much due to being beat down, disillusioned, and tapped out as far as trying to do something about it in the face of a "front row" that doesn't like to listen to comments from their inferiors.

    When I was working for the state, I considered myself very lucky to be involved in a project that was doing something meaningful, being productive and, while mistakes were made here and there, was relatively efficient overall. I could see how this was not the case in the departments working beside ours.

    Eventually, though, the egos of the upper echelon managed to intrude even into our well defended (by caring managers) little island of fortitude and competance, and I had to say screw it. Now, unlike most of the rest of my friends that got laid off and sucked the government unemployement insurance tit, I am fending for myself with the money I saved by not buying useless crap.

    So when people try to say I was overpayed at 60% of my fair private-industry salary, I don't shirk from the criticism. Yeah, the benefits were better than the private sector and the environment more permissive, but at least I didn't go looking for a handout like others so they could keep up the credit card payments for their DVD collections and car loan for their gas guzzling S.U.V.

    At least I, one of those loathsome, lazy, state workers, had the good conscience not to apply my talents to better the carreer of a gaggle of idiots who aren't overseen adequately by the legislature that created their positions. If you want the state sector fixed, aim at the top. The clock punchers at the bottom are just a symptom of a management that preserves itself by not giving their underlings enough of a reason to revolt.

  • by Secret Agent X23 ( 760764 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @05:15PM (#10927259)
    It really helped to highlight some of the issue with the freeIpod stuff; people can ignore marketing, but are absolutely infuriated if they feel "deceived" somehow.

    And you didn't see that coming because... ???

  • by waynelorentz ( 662271 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @05:22PM (#10927311) Homepage
    Can I take the opportunity to point out that faxyourmp is for UK citizens ONLY and should only be used to fax your own MP. It is not for international write-ins or mass lobbying.

    Why? If British people can be encouraged to interfere with the American political process [csmonitor.com], then why can't Americans do the same to the Brits?
  • by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @05:53PM (#10927478) Journal
    It's much more reliable to back up your data and do a fresh install. I experimant with upgrades, but even(or especially) with linux, I prefer to clean the disk and start fresh. Apple on the other hand(before OS X anyway, don't know if it still is) was great. It would just create a clean new system folder. With the old one still there, I could just "bless" it if necessary. Oh, well...There's still nothing more trustworthy than pen and paper, and a good ol' mimeograph machine(the hand crank variety) for makin' copies...And they smell great.
  • by man_of_mr_e ( 217855 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @07:12PM (#10927878)
    And if you're pushing out updates to Windows, you're almost assuredly using a Windows update package that also checks OS versions.

    Guess what? EDS chose to do it themselves using a third party product rather than use the much more mature and safe existing update tools.

    Now who's fault is that?
  • Re:EDS again (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mpcooke3 ( 306161 ) on Friday November 26, 2004 @09:51PM (#10928625) Homepage
    I love the goverment tendering process it fills me with much amusement.

    The idea that you pay one company to come up with a box of requirements then send it out to tender, and get several boxes back from a few large companies like EDS. Then these get send off to the company contracted to deal with the subcontracting/tendering process. A haggling process commences between bunches of lawyers on both sides resulting in usually only one or two possibilities the cheapest one is then selected and fucks it up. Now a days most reputable companies don't even tender a bid cos of the cost and the fact they know it will be wasted money cos some company renowned for their failures like EDS will just undercut them.

    My particular favourite was penalty clauses against downtime for an NHS system were introduced due to the fact that the system was so critical. But the company involved rather than implementing a backup system decided it would be more cost effective to ensure against a system failure.

    Perhaps one day the out-sourcing-sub-contracting-legal-wrangling craziness will stop.
  • by upsidedown_duck ( 788782 ) on Saturday November 27, 2004 @01:25AM (#10929414)
    It's this willingness to say "Localised error. That's all. Nothing to see here" that gives IT it's bad reputation.

    Excactly, and IT earned every bit of it. No one wants to pay for processes, no one wants to expend the extra effort for processes, and no one does. People in IT are more comfortable taking the intellectually lazy route and, because it works 80% of the time, they become quite comfortable doing it. For that other 20% or whatever, they figure out how to rationalize it as a "software glitch", even when it is their own fault, but the people they are explaining it to are so ignorant they will accept any explanation as the absolute truth. Management in IT must be the most ill-prepared and gullible bunch in any industry anywhere. The fact that accountants can't even match up trends in hardware and software costs with associated labor costs doesn't help (who here is still working on a 300MHz Pentium II with a buzzing hard drive and a 60Hz monitor, when the new hire in the next cube gets a 5GHz gold-plated dream machine who then wonders why you can't run their favorite dev tool of the week?).

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...