• Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to herby
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Dirk (unregistered)

    This guy now has a job in the Thai military.

    "So ten days ago you saw MH370 on your radar and you didn't tell us?"

    "Why didn't you just ask?"

  • Gently (unregistered) in reply to Dirk

    "I assumed it was a false alarm."

    "Nope."

  • Kasper (unregistered) in reply to Rich
    Rich:
    I get stuff from FTP all the time. We download from vendors.

    There are three classes we deal with:

    People that give us encrypted data. Sure people could steal credentials, but the data is encrypted, they can't do much with it.

    People that give us unencrypted, not specific to us data. Government T-Bill data and the like.

    People that are somewhat clueless, and give valuable data with no encryption.

    You're assuming the last, but we have a lot of the upper two.

    You are assuming SSL is about encryption. Sure encryption is part of it, but in most cases where encryption is used, the integrity of the data is more important than confidentiality.

    You give as an example a situation, in which you download more or less public data. If the data is essentially public, you might not need to worry about confidentiality. But if you do not care about integrity either, you could just not download the data in the first place and make up some data yourself.

  • Similis (unregistered) in reply to Kasper
    Kasper:
    If the dick is essentially pubic, you might not need to worry about cock. But if you do not care about integrity either, you could just not deepthroat the dick in the first place and fuck up some shit yourself.
    You're so right, bro. Nobody cares about data integrity.
  • DrPepper (cs) in reply to MrFox
    MrFox:
    The problem is that he's not working to solve the problem. He just sits there ignoring the fact that he caused the problem. All he seems willing to do is follow direct commands from others, while he should be trying to add value to the company.

    Yep. With this kind of response, John's instructions should be "Fix this today; then start looking for another job tomorrow". You can't have an idiot who insists that everything is working fine, when there is ample evidence it is not.

  • Snooder (cs) in reply to DrPepper
    DrPepper:
    MrFox:
    The problem is that he's not working to solve the problem. He just sits there ignoring the fact that he caused the problem. All he seems willing to do is follow direct commands from others, while he should be trying to add value to the company.

    Yep. With this kind of response, John's instructions should be "Fix this today; then start looking for another job tomorrow". You can't have an idiot who insists that everything is working fine, when there is ample evidence it is not.

    Hahaha. Sure you can fire him, but who would u get to replace him? The next guy who is also just phoning it in? Unless you are willing to pay way more than most businesses are, you aren't to find applicants who are both passionate and willing to stay long-term. You either get lifers like Clint who just want to punch the clock, or the guy departs in a year after getting just enough experience to get a better paying job.

  • Triager of Symptoms (unregistered)

    Can't realize how many times I've been on both sides of this interchange

    "The web server is down/No, it's responding to requests/The web server is down/No, the network firewall is blocking requests from outside the company to that resource"

    and

    "I'm not seeing any requests on this service from a machine that typically generates 200 every hour. Did the network configuration change?/No/ Are you sure, this is core business for us/ Oh, we did install a new security patch that automatically added new firewall rules/So the network did change..."

    abico: When the person at the other end abdicates all responsibility for their screw ups.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to Gently
    Gently:
    "I assumed it was a false alarm."

    "Nope."

    That's what Tepco does in Fukushima. Over and over.

  • Gechurch (unregistered) in reply to Spewin Coffee
    Spewin Coffee:
    Okay, there are multiple problems here:
    1. There is someone so busy at an organization putting out little fires that they don't have time...

    The article didn't hint at that at all. The 'guru' was reading Internet sites which we're implied to believe is non-work-related, and the manager isn't putting out spot fires - he's investigating a single problem. A problem that the 'guru' created through ineptitude. My reading of the article isn't that there's not enough staff, it sounds more like they are big enough that they have loafers on the payroll that get away with doing next-to-nothing all day long.

    Spewin Coffee:
    2) There is no automation. The guy who is swamped should be finding ways to automate his job so that he has time to think clearly.

    He seems to be anything but swamped, but automation is good for quality-control as well as time-saving. It wouldn't have made any difference here though. I've never seen an update pushed out to a server that blocks port 21. Surely this is an optional update for locking down your (non-FTP) servers. A human would be installing/approving this update whether automation is used or not.

    Spewin Coffee:
    3) There is no accountability.

    That certainly seems to be the case. Too often in big business (and often in SMB's too) incompetent people are allowed to thrive. Management are too scared to let them go, or simply don't know IT well enough to recognise that the person is incompetent.

    Spewin Coffee:
    4) A security patch closed a port. That means it got closed for a reason.

    Patches are made for all sorts of situations, and not all of them will apply to every computer. Just because a patch exists that closes port 21 doesn't mean that closing port 21 on your particular server makes sense!

    Spewin Coffee:
    Then someone went and opened the port again without evaluating that reason.

    My mind nearly segfaulted trying to parse the logic behind that statement! A change was made that clearly hasn't gone through change-management, and clearly wasn't desired. It's causing very real problems for all customers right now, and it has a trivial fix with a well-known result (we're not talking about a radical change, we're just putting things back the way they were). In the face of the overwhelming evidence of what the problem was, why it happened, and how to fix it are you seriously suggesting there needs to be further formal analysis of the fix while customers continue to send angry emails, unable to do their work???

    Clayton, is the you??

  • gmac (unregistered) in reply to lol

    This only this. Clayton has zero excuse other then intrinsic assess. Sure maybe there is a history, no excuse.

  • Essex Kitten (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.

Leave a comment on “Change Request”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article