• Randall (unregistered) in reply to Outlaw Programmer

    kind of like this xkcd comic: http://www.xkcd.com/378/

  • HEHEHE (unregistered)

    TRWTF is R. Kelley is innocent.

  • (cs) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    grg:
    In the old Strategic Air Command they had to run a full attack run-through with real nuclear weapons twice a year.

    One B-58 pilot was concentrating on their simulated bombing of Chicago, carefully following his checklist, when the Navigator/Bommbardier asked over the intercom: "Anybody have a tool I can use to cut this safety wire?" It seems he was following his checklist a little bit TOO closely and wanted to flip the "Arm bomb drop" lever, which is normally safety-wired into the OFF position. When chastised for this later on he just reiterated that they're told over and over to follow the checklist.

    When my Dad was in the army, stationed at Fort Dix, they used to roll out the big guns for targeting practice. Since there weren't a whole lot of enemy aircraft flying near Fort Dix, they used to track commercial jets.

    One night, it had rained extremely heavily. The next morning, they were tracking some commercial jet, when someone (not my Dad) fired the gun. Fortunately, the very heavy installation mount had sunk into the mud a bit, so the targeting was off.

    Said the guy who hit the trigger: "But I was told to follow the firing procedure, Sir!"

    Shenanigans.

    It makes absolutely no sense to do a simulated bombing with a real warhead or tracking practice with a loaded gun. It doesn't add to the learning/testing effect of the exercise and leaves you wide open for catastrophic mistakes even if the operator doesn't have his brain switched off.

  • SomeCoder (unregistered) in reply to Reaper
    Reaper:
    QA 2.0 users do the tests companies just deploy and get paid
    1. Write code
    2. Deploy to production
    3. End Users test
    4. ???
    5. Profit!!
  • (cs)

    Not sure if this has been posted yet: http://www.xkcd.com/378/

  • js (unregistered) in reply to Grovesy

    "Thou shalt not develop on production systems" is one of the things I find myself preaching to deaf ears. Another is "thou shalt keep thy coffee grinds in a sealed container in thy refrigerator, lest the coffee go foul and stale", but that's not quite as serious.

  • nordberg (unregistered)

    Real programmers get the Irish girl to convince the client that the code has been written.

  • G (unregistered)

    lol guys did you see this http://www.xkcd.com/378/

  • (cs) in reply to Reaper
    Reaper:
    QA 2.0 users do the tests companies just deploy and get paid

    What's 2.0 about that? That's been how Microsoft does it for years.

  • Scotty (unregistered)

    is the fix in yet?? we'll test it in production, FACADE!!!

  • (cs) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    snoofle:
    grg:
    In the old Strategic Air Command they had to run a full attack run-through with real nuclear weapons twice a year...they're told over and over to follow the checklist.
    When my Dad was in the army...Said the guy who hit the trigger: "But I was told to follow the firing procedure, Sir!"
    I really, seriously, wish I could believe that this is an imaginary WTF.

    The sad thing is that I suspect that the Specialist (Third Class) Artillery guy in question was posted to the Gulf just before that Iranian civilian airliner was shot down.

    This happened about 35 years ago, so probably not, but it might have been his (grand)son :)

  • notJoeKing (unregistered) in reply to G
    G:
    lol guys did you see this http://www.xkcd.com/378/
    That one was good but it wasn't half as funny as this one: http://www.xkcd.com/378/
  • (cs) in reply to js
    js:
    "Thou shalt not develop on production systems" is one of the things I find myself preaching to deaf ears. Another is "thou shalt keep thy coffee grinds in a sealed container in thy refrigerator, lest the coffee go foul and stale", but that's not quite as serious.
    Thou shalt not grind thy beans until thou needst them, and then only in such quantity as is necessary, no more.
  • grg (unregistered) in reply to brazzy

    It makes absolutely no sense to do a simulated bombing with a real warhead or tracking practice with a loaded gun.

    I beg to disagree. Time and time again it's been found that the parts you skip will have some flaw that invalidates the usefulness of the whole test.

    In particular with the bombs you have to use the real thing to check out the interfaces between the bomb pod and the plane's electronics. Sometimes something as subtle as the bomb pod's fuel tank being filled with especially cold fuel could cause weird sensor readings. Also they would not have learned that the fuel could seep into the bomb compartment if the plane made a 6-g turn.

  • (cs) in reply to Outlaw Programmer

    At least it was an accident, I've sometimes seen management actually order devs to skip QA and deploy straight into production!

    Outlaw Programmer:
    I'm beginning to support MasterPlanSoftware's ban on xkcd references.
    No, please ... no. The main articles fortunately aren't his "domain". Anyway, why ban them if we like them? Most xkcd jokes are directly or indirectly related with computer science, or even computing WTF's (like the Debian OpenSSL SNAFU) so it's not like its off-topic.

    I for example just don't find the Monty Python overquoting funny, but I'm not about to propose a Monty Python reference ban either. ;)

  • moz (unregistered) in reply to grg
    grg:
    Time and time again it's been found that the parts you skip will have some flaw that invalidates the usefulness of the whole test.
    Such as not checking that a gun was still where you left it once in a while, even after heavy rainfall.
  • vt_mruhlin (unregistered)

    The guy needed a document to tell him not to deploy straight to production?

  • Corporate Cog (unregistered)

    Dave did everything correctly. The only wtf is that Dave was given rights to production day 1. That's a pretty big wtf. Took me months and I still didn't want the rights.

  • Stiggy (unregistered) in reply to dave
    dave:
    JippenFaddoul:
    Who needs testing if it compiles? o.O

    I thought that was testing. Maybe that's what I've been doing wrong all these years.

    Wait... You're supposed to compile it first?

    Damn, why did nobody tell me?!?

  • (cs) in reply to Corporate Cog
    Corporate Cog:
    Dave did everything correctly. The only wtf is that Dave was given rights to production day 1. That's a pretty big wtf. Took me months and I still didn't want the rights.
    A pretty good WTF is when your QA environment has the same username/password combinations they use in Production. One slip on the URL, and you might be deploying into the production biggies.

    Combine this with no source code control, you got a nice disaster waiting to happen!

    Oh, and by the way, some years ago I was working as a developer, adding functions to a PHP-based app ... which had no development server. All changes were made live, and given the nature of PHP, of course all could go to hell as soon as we typed Esc+:w ... BOOM!

  • Rich (unregistered)

    With all these 'real programmers use ...' references, i was reminded of The Story of Mel.

  • (cs) in reply to grg
    grg:
    >It makes absolutely no sense to do a simulated bombing with a real warhead or tracking practice with a loaded gun.

    I beg to disagree. Time and time again it's been found that the parts you skip will have some flaw that invalidates the usefulness of the whole test.

    In particular with the bombs you have to use the real thing to check out the interfaces between the bomb pod and the plane's electronics. Sometimes something as subtle as the bomb pod's fuel tank being filled with especially cold fuel could cause weird sensor readings. Also they would not have learned that the fuel could seep into the bomb compartment if the plane made a 6-g turn.

    There's a difference between testing and practicing. In addition, if you're going to *test* your procedure and systems with a live nuke, I'd rather you didn't do it over Chicago. That's what god gave us New Mexico for.
  • karen (unregistered) in reply to rdrunner

    Exactly! You've just outsourced your Q.A. department to your user base - what could make better business/cost effective/bottom line sense? Brilliant!

  • blagger (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark

    It's not likely he's English -- the English generally know how to spell "lose".

  • rleibman (unregistered) in reply to Bappi
    Bappi:
    Thou shalt not grind thy beans until thou needst them, and then only in such quantity as is necessary, no more.

    Though shall not ROAST the beans until thou needs them.

  • mizchief (unregistered) in reply to SomeCoder
    SomeCoder:
    Reaper:
    QA 2.0 users do the tests companies just deploy and get paid
    1. Write code
    2. Deploy to production
    3. End Users test
    4. ???
    5. Profit!!

    Thats kids stuff. The real way to make money is to develop code for one client using them as the QA testers. Then once your done turn around and sell your now tested product to 100 other people.

  • snoofle (unregistered) in reply to mizchief
    mizchief:
    SomeCoder:
    Reaper:
    QA 2.0 users do the tests companies just deploy and get paid
    1. Write code
    2. Deploy to production
    3. End Users test
    4. ???
    5. Profit!!

    Thats kids stuff. The real way to make money is to develop code for one client using them as the QA testers. Then once your done turn around and sell your now tested product to 100,000,000 other people.

    FTFY.

  • (cs) in reply to brazzy
    brazzy:
    It makes absolutely no sense to do a simulated bombing with a real warhead or tracking practice with a loaded gun.
    Actually, with a big enough gun with a big enough shell, the weight of the shell in the gun makes a difference w.r.t. targeting/trajectory/recoil.

    Of course, there should be a fire-safety switch, but as others have pointed out, they can be inadvertently overridden.

    Clearly, there's a need for live-fire exercises (though I really can't justify pointing a live gun at a civilian target under any circumstances). More importantly, I wonder what the folks at Fort Dix were preparing for? It's not likely that they'd ever need to face an attack there.

  • oppeto (unregistered) in reply to danixdefcon5

    No one ever expects a Monty Python reference!

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Bappi
    Bappi:
    There's a difference between testing and practicing. In addition, if you're going to *test* your procedure and systems with a live nuke, I'd rather you didn't do it over Chicago.

    I agree. If you're going to test live nukes, you should do it over Washington DC.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to diaphanein
    diaphanein:
    Real programmers write websites in C (no, I didn't mean C#).

    Oh, you want a COMPILER to generate your machine code for you. My, aren't we getting cushy. Would you like the maid to bring you a cup of tea, sir?

  • oppeto saying why diaphanein would say (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    diaphanein:
    Real programmers write websites in C (no, I didn't mean C#).

    Oh, you want a COMPILER to generate your machine code for you. My, aren't we getting cushy. Would you like the maid to bring you a cup of tea, sir?

    If by tea you mean beer, and by maid you meed naked stripper, then yes. Yes I do.

  • (cs) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    Grovesy:
    Mr. Eff:
    Grovesy:
    Why deploy? just code directly on the server!

    You must be a Sharepoint developer!

    Saddly not, retail developer... as much as you try and drum into the business 'process' and protecting the thing that makes you a few hundred million a year they still force through 1/2 finished features to 'get it out there and get feedback'...

    Nothing like an out of action site loosing millions by the hour to focus your mind on why ohh why you accepted another contract in this industry.

    You're English, aren't you?

    Yup...

  • (cs) in reply to oppeto saying why diaphanein would say
    oppeto:
    If by tea you mean beer, and by maid you meed naked stripper, then yes. Yes I do.
    If she's naked, is she still a stripper?
  • Mr. Eff (unregistered) in reply to blagger
    blagger:
    It's not likely he's English -- the English generally know how to spell "lose".

    I think it's actually that most English speakers can spell "loose" and misuse it as "lose".

  • frustrati (unregistered) in reply to Grovesy
    Grovesy:
    real_aardvark:
    Grovesy:
    Mr. Eff:
    Grovesy:
    Why deploy? just code directly on the server!

    You must be a Sharepoint developer!

    Saddly not, retail developer... as much as you try and drum into the business 'process' and protecting the thing that makes you a few hundred million a year they still force through 1/2 finished features to 'get it out there and get feedback'...

    Nothing like an out of action site loosing millions by the hour to focus your mind on why ohh why you accepted another contract in this industry.

    You're English, aren't you?

    Yup...

    So now we know where Grovesy works... Have you started handing out those £10 vouchers yet?

  • thedarkside (unregistered) in reply to Bappi
    Bappi:
    oppeto:
    If by tea you mean beer, and by maid you meed naked stripper, then yes. Yes I do.
    If she's naked, is she still a stripper?

    If she let you watch whilst she disrobed, then yes. If she arrived already naked, she's probably escaped from a mental health facility.

  • (cs) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    diaphanein:
    It's java - not like it's going to work (well) anyways. Real programmers write websites in C (no, I didn't mean C#). And they write the code from their blackberries.
    Blackberries? Ha! I remember writing code on my programmable Casio calculator!

    Rookie!

    So did I. With 10k memory and a 400kHz processor. But it was in a reduced version of Basic.

  • (cs) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    grg:
    In the old Strategic Air Command they had to run a full attack run-through with real nuclear weapons twice a year.

    One B-58 pilot was concentrating on their simulated bombing of Chicago, carefully following his checklist, when the Navigator/Bommbardier asked over the intercom: "Anybody have a tool I can use to cut this safety wire?" It seems he was following his checklist a little bit TOO closely and wanted to flip the "Arm bomb drop" lever, which is normally safety-wired into the OFF position. When chastised for this later on he just reiterated that they're told over and over to follow the checklist.

    When my Dad was in the army, stationed at Fort Dix, they used to roll out the big guns for targeting practice. Since there weren't a whole lot of enemy aircraft flying near Fort Dix, they used to track commercial jets.

    One night, it had rained extremely heavily. The next morning, they were tracking some commercial jet, when someone (not my Dad) fired the gun. Fortunately, the very heavy installation mount had sunk into the mud a bit, so the targeting was off.

    Said the guy who hit the trigger: "But I was told to follow the firing procedure, Sir!"

    Brainless acting is one of the corner-stones in the military. In the civil world they correspond to officials.

  • (cs) in reply to Reaper
    Reaper:
    QA 2.0 users do the tests companies just deploy and get paid

    Well, look at Windows! If MS can do it, why not others, too?

  • (cs) in reply to Jake Vinson
    Jake Vinson:
    Not sure if this has been posted yet: http://www.xkcd.com/378/

    Didn't test your link. So, just in case it doesn't work, I deploy this one on the WTF-server:

    http://www.xkcd.com/378/

  • SomeCoder (unregistered) in reply to thedarkside
    thedarkside:
    Bappi:
    oppeto:
    If by tea you mean beer, and by maid you meed naked stripper, then yes. Yes I do.
    If she's naked, is she still a stripper?

    If she let you watch whilst she disrobed, then yes. If she arrived already naked, she's probably escaped from a mental health facility.

    I think some sort of monetary transaction needs to take place to say she's a stripper. Otherwise, by your definition, most girlfriends and wives are strippers (hey, if someone wants to call their wife a stripper, more power to em, but mine is definitely not :) )

    If she does something more for a monetary transaction, then we get into a whole other realm (though some strippers also venture into this realm as well)

  • (cs) in reply to frustrati
    frustrati:
    So now we know where Grovesy works... Have you started handing out those £10 vouchers yet?

    Hmmm where do you think I work? I think a few people here know I used to be at Microsoft before going back contracting...

    I've made previous references to Serena Dimmensions and eCommerce which, if anyone has ever been there it's an instant give away (along with my name)

  • (cs) in reply to ClaudeSuck.de
    ClaudeSuck.de:
    Brainless acting is one of the corner-stones in the military.
    Theirs not to reason why; Theirs but to do and die. Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
  • Daryl (unregistered) in reply to Grovesy

    Don't I work with you?

  • Chad (unregistered) in reply to nordberg
    nordberg:
    Real programmers get the Irish girl to convince the client that the code has been written.

    Irish girl can convince anyone!

    NSFW

  • (cs) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    Grovesy:
    Mr. Eff:
    Grovesy:
    Why deploy? just code directly on the server!

    You must be a Sharepoint developer!

    Saddly not, retail developer... as much as you try and drum into the business 'process' and protecting the thing that makes you a few hundred million a year they still force through 1/2 finished features to 'get it out there and get feedback'...

    Nothing like an out of action site loosing millions by the hour to focus your mind on why ohh why you accepted another contract in this industry.

    You're English, aren't you?
    More likely American. English spelling hasn't degenerated as far as that.

  • Chad (unregistered) in reply to danixdefcon5
    danixdefcon5:
    At least it was an accident, I've sometimes seen management actually order devs to skip QA and deploy straight into production!
    Outlaw Programmer:
    I'm beginning to support MasterPlanSoftware's ban on xkcd references.
    No, please ... no. The main articles fortunately aren't his "domain". Anyway, why ban them if we like them? Most xkcd jokes are directly or indirectly related with computer science, or even computing WTF's (like the Debian OpenSSL SNAFU) so it's not like its off-topic.

    I for example just don't find the Monty Python overquoting funny, but I'm not about to propose a Monty Python reference ban either. ;)

    I propose a compromise. How about if someone tries to post a URL in the comments, it gets stripped if it already exists in the same thread.

  • Chad (unregistered) in reply to mizchief
    mizchief:
    SomeCoder:
    Reaper:
    QA 2.0 users do the tests companies just deploy and get paid
    1. Write code
    2. Deploy to production
    3. End Users test
    4. ???
    5. Profit!!

    Thats kids stuff. The real way to make money is to develop code for one client using them as the QA testers. Then once your done turn around and sell your now tested product to 100 other people.

    Don't laugh. My company is currently that guinea pig. We found a vendor with a software product that MOSTLY meets our needs. However, we're paying them big bucks to make major feature changes. After this is all said and done, they'll integrate it into their general codebase and sell it to everyone else.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    snoofle:
    diaphanein:
    It's java - not like it's going to work (well) anyways. Real programmers write websites in C (no, I didn't mean C#). And they write the code from their blackberries.
    Blackberries? Ha! I remember writing code on my programmable Casio calculator!

    Rookie!

    Casio? Amateur. Real geeks use HP calculators, and program in assembly language by exploiting bugs in the RPL interpreters.

    Yeah, I remember doing Synthetic Programming on an HP-41CV. Good times.

Leave a comment on “Application Lifecycle Mismanagement”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article