• jim (unregistered)

    This is what you call corporate judo.

  • (cs)

    pwned.

    I've dealt with crap like that myself, though not as bad. We released the exact same schemas for six revision sets once, even though they weren't even close to accurate, and no one noticed.

  • Benzaholic (unregistered)

    Such a sweet burn, with, "We can't read wingdings, because we don't know how to display it in a different font," as the gravy.

    Ballsy, but sweet. On this story alone, I would consider working for that development manager.

     

  • What name (unregistered) in reply to Benzaholic

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>The real WTF is what is encoded behind the Wingdings picture (spelling preserved)</FONT>

    <FONT size=4>

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>INTAL GUIDEy</FONT>

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>And the rest is total gibberish. For example first sentence under the guide starts with:</FONT>

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>

    qcavdRadAsqa

    </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>

    And the 2nd to last line (underlined) is:

    </FONT><FONT size=4>

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>}ck?qb 8ha2</FONT>

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>These instructions wouldn't help anyone even if they were converted into the right font.</FONT>

    </FONT></FONT>
  • mathew (unregistered) in reply to What name

    I suspect you'll find that it's gibberish in order to anonymize the sender. We don't need to be able to read their deployment documentation to get the joke, after all.

  • (cs)
    Today's world, terrorists, Sarbanes-Oxley, corporate espionage, malicious employees, super villains, etc -- you know the spiel.

    You left out 9/11.
  • (cs) in reply to What name

    <FONT face=Arial>I think the point was more along the lines of a clear demonstration that, in spite of what the network group was claiming, the network group clearly wasn't reading (or even looking at) the deployment guides prepared by the applications group, and hadn't been for the last dozen deployments.  (A very inventive demonstration on the development group's part.)</FONT>

    <FONT face=Arial>And no, this sort of negligent disconnect is sadly <FONT color=#000000>not</FONT> terribly uncommon...</FONT>

  • (cs) in reply to Thogek
    Thogek:

    <font face="Arial">I think the point was more along the lines of a clear demonstration that, in spite of what the network group was claiming, the network group clearly wasn't reading (or even looking at) the deployment guides prepared by the applications group, and hadn't been for the last dozen deployments.  (A very inventive demonstration on the development group's part.)</font>

    <font face="Arial">And no, this sort of negligent disconnect is sadly <font color="#000000">not</font> terribly uncommon...</font>



    I'm going to have to start doing this.
  • Shana (unregistered)

    Brilliant!

    Oh I just wish I could've been there to see the look on the Network Manager, Vice-President and Director's faces... priceless!

    Pity no managers ever get fired for something like this minions, on the other hand...

  • (cs) in reply to What name
    WeatherGod:
    marvin_rabbit:
    Anonymous:

    <font face="Arial" size="2">The real WTF is what is encoded behind the Wingdings picture (spelling preserved)</font>

    <font size="4">

    <font face="Arial" size="2">INTAL GUIDEy</font>

    <font face="Arial" size="2">And the rest is total gibberish. For example first sentence under the guide starts with:</font>

    <font face="Arial" size="2">

    qcavdRadAsqa

    </font><font face="Arial" size="2">

    And the 2nd to last line (underlined) is:

    </font><font size="4">

    <font face="Arial" size="2">}ck?qb 8ha2</font>

    <font face="Arial" size="2">These instructions wouldn't help anyone even if they were converted into the right font.</font>

    </font></font>

    You eeediot.  It's double ROT-13 encrypted!



    to REALLY improve security get 13-ROTtweiler

    :)


  • (cs)
    Alex Papadimoulis:

    Many failed deployment later, the Director of the Technology Assets Unit sent a "very stern" email to the Director of Application Development, demanding a meeting between their groups to discuss this problem.

    Meeting:

    A group of people who individually can do nothing

    and collectively agree nothing can be done.

  • (cs) in reply to What name
    WeatherGod:
    marvin_rabbit:
    Anonymous:

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>The real WTF is what is encoded behind the Wingdings picture (spelling preserved)</FONT>

    <FONT size=4>

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>INTAL GUIDEy</FONT>

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>And the rest is total gibberish. For example first sentence under the guide starts with:</FONT>

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>

    qcavdRadAsqa

    </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>

    And the 2nd to last line (underlined) is:

    </FONT><FONT size=4>

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>}ck?qb 8ha2</FONT>

    <FONT face=Arial size=2>These instructions wouldn't help anyone even if they were converted into the right font.</FONT>

    </FONT></FONT>


    You eeediot.  It's double ROT-13 encrypted!


    Nah, to improve security, you must do quadruple ROT-13.

    Brings to mind my favorite security measure.  When sending 'sensitive' information via Fax I always FOLD THE PAPER before inserting it in the Fax machine to keep it confidential.

  • rocksanddirt (unregistered)

    question-- and forgive me if I read this wrong, BUT, did the network guys convert it from wingdings the first eleven times without complaint?

  • (cs)

    I would love to hear what happened after this, it's a great story .... Can the submitter let us know how things ended up? 

  • (cs) in reply to rocksanddirt

    Anonymous:
    question-- and forgive me if I read this wrong, BUT, did the network guys convert it from wingdings the first eleven times without complaint?

    No, they did not.  When the dev manager told them that he'd been using wingdings for months, they refused to believe it.  Thankfully we had been saving every release of the installation instructions in SharePoint, so it was quite easy to prove.

    At the end of the day, I don't think anyone yelled at the IT guys.  The C*Os were too busy yelling at the dev manager.

    This same dev manager got reprimanded for lots of "counterproductive" stuff, like interuptting a project manager in the middle of a meeting to point out that everything he was saying was a complete lie. 

  • (cs)

    That is awesome. I love it.

    If ever I have to rejoin corporate America, I think I'd like to work for a manager like this.

  • Smurf Bunny (unregistered)

    This is what happens when management doesn't fire people and has meetings instead.

  • Miles Archer (unregistered) in reply to d4ddyo

    There's nothing here that couldn't have been solved by inviting the right IT guy to lunch. The only trick is finding the one guy with half a brain.

  • (cs) in reply to d4ddyo

    While worthy of the front page, wasn't this in the sidebar a while back?

    BTW: I would love to work for that development manager

  • (cs) in reply to mooney
    mooney:

    At the end of the day, I don't think anyone yelled at the IT guys.  The C*Os were too busy yelling at the dev manager.

    This same dev manager got reprimanded for lots of "counterproductive" stuff, like interuptting a project manager in the middle of a meeting to point out that everything he was saying was a complete lie. 

    At the Dev manager?!? Are the C*Os as stoopid as IT? They didn't understand that the IT Manager was lying through his teeth when he said he read/followed instructions to the letter?

    As I shake my head, I can only have sympathy for the Dev manager. Been there, done that, left that company to wallow in its own misery...

    -shnar

  • Shizzle (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:

    While worthy of the front page, wasn't this in the sidebar a while back?

    BTW: I would love to work for that development manager



    Yes, indeed it was!
  • Shizzle (unregistered) in reply to d4ddyo
    d4ddyo:
    That is awesome. I love it.

    If ever I have to rejoin corporate America, I think I'd like to work for a manager like this.

    If you rejoin corporate American, you won't have a choice.
  • Shizzle (unregistered) in reply to Shizzle
    Anonymous:
    d4ddyo:
    That is awesome. I love it.

    If ever I have to rejoin corporate America, I think I'd like to work for a manager like this.

    If you rejoin corporate American, you won't have a choice.

    Of course, depends on which manager in the story you are referring to.
  • (cs) in reply to Smurf Bunny

    Anonymous:
    This is what happens when management doesn't fire people and has meetings instead.

     

    Ha, true. 

    But, they DID end up "releasing" the VP of Development (the dev manager's boss, and a fantastic manager) for being "counterproductive." 

    In addition to his constant battles with the Lumbergs of the company, he replied to an email from the President/COO, detailing line-by-line why every statement in the President made in the email was false, and copied all of the senior management on it.  He was gone the next morning. 

    I resigned the next week, and then began looking for a new job.

  • (cs) in reply to Shizzle
    Anonymous:
    snoofle:

    While worthy of the front page, wasn't this in the sidebar a while back?

    BTW: I would love to work for that development manager



    Yes, indeed it was!


    I said as much in the 5th post but it suddenly vanished, oddly....

  • (cs)
    Alex Papadimoulis:

    Timidly, one of the Development managers admitted to making the change. The Network Operations manager fired back, demanding to know how he could possibly think that insulting his team like this, amidst all the deployment problems, would be a funny practical joke. "Well," the Development manager replied, "it's funny because we've been releasing our guides like that for the past twelve deployments."



    Seriously ballsy...
  • ax (unregistered) in reply to ParkinT
    ParkinT:
    Alex Papadimoulis:

    Many failed deployment later, the Director of the Technology Assets Unit sent a "very stern" email to the Director of Application Development, demanding a meeting between their groups to discuss this problem.

    Meeting:

    A group of people who individually can do nothing

    and collectively agree nothing can be done.



    I think that's called a commitee
  • dee piddy (unregistered)

    Funny thing is in explorer, a tool tip is shown that does the translation for you.

     

     

  • null (unregistered) in reply to tiro

    Really what I want to clarify, was the story as follows....

    1) deployments fail because instructions not followed
    2) stern emails get sent about deployments not working
    3) manager decides to start sending instructions in wingdings
    4) 11 more bad deployments
    5) Big meeting with bigwigs, where manager tells that wingdings used on last 11 deployments

    The question being, was it already after they had failed to follow instructions many times that the manager decided to send wingdings to see if they were even reading them?  When I first read the story, it seemed like the manager sent the wingdings from the beginning as a joke.  But instead it was the wingding instructions that got sent after the stern emails and quite a few failed deploys...If this is the case, the dev manager should be rewarded, not reprimanded, for showing that obviously the instructions were never being read.

  • (cs)

    I've seen normal looking documents print out as wingdings in odd cases, mostly with HP printer drivers. Everything is exactly correct, layout and everything, but all the text is wingdings. It'd be funny it it wasn't annoying.

    I imagine there could be some pdf converter, or viewer, out there with the same sort of flaw, though it's hard to imagine. Or maybe they printed it from the pdf, to an hp printer, and got wingdings each time.

    The wtf is that nobody said anything earlier. Users are like that. Complain, complain, complain, but never give any clue as to why they're upset. "My computer's broken, nothing works" could mean that they forgot where they saved something.

  • (cs)

    Holy deletions Batman!  Someone must be in a bad mood ...

    http://thedailywtf.com/moderationhistory.aspx

    So I suppose this is of the RTFM variety ... people complaining about something when they're not taking the time to do a little homework (OK, not even home)

    Think this corporation is a little 'top heavy?'

  • (cs) in reply to dee piddy
    Anonymous:

    Funny thing is in explorer, a tool tip is shown that does the translation for you.

    Why does the 'it' have three characters then?

  • (cs) in reply to mooney

    Good call on the resignation. I cannot see this company doing anything but declare bankruptcy in the near future.

  • (cs) in reply to null

    Anonymous:
    Really what I want to clarify, was the story as follows....

    1) deployments fail because instructions not followed
    2) stern emails get sent about deployments not working
    3) manager decides to start sending instructions in wingdings
    4) 11 more bad deployments
    5) Big meeting with bigwigs, where manager tells that wingdings used on last 11 deployments

    The question being, was it already after they had failed to follow instructions many times that the manager decided to send wingdings to see if they were even reading them?  When I first read the story, it seemed like the manager sent the wingdings from the beginning as a joke.  But instead it was the wingding instructions that got sent after the stern emails and quite a few failed deploys...If this is the case, the dev manager should be rewarded, not reprimanded, for showing that obviously the instructions were never being read.

    After repeated failed deployments, Development started providing installation instructions to IT, and IT was required to follow them.

    For several months, deployments continued to fail, quite obviously because the instructions were not being followed.  When we complained, IT claimed that they had followed the instructions. 

    So, the dev manager hatched a plot and spent several months carrying it out.  So, the dev manager replaced the existing instructions with wingdings.

    note: the instructions were updated every time, and IT was required to read them every time.  I believe there was a change log in the document, but that was in wingdings too.

    The dev manager was reprimanded because of the "poor" way he handled the situation, causing unnecessary controversy.  The point from management tried to make was that if we suspected there was a problem, we should have said something.  The thing is, we did say something, several times.  It was blown off because management didn't feel like dealing with the problem, because it didn't really affect them. 

    C*O: "You're not calling Joe The IT Guy a liar, are you?!?!"

    Dev Manager: "Yes, I am"

    C*O: "Well, you can't call him a liar, that's unprofessional.  And we don't hire liars"

    Dev Manager: "But he is lying.  Here is clear proof."

    C*O: "Stop being difficult.  We don't have time for these arguments, it's not about who is right and wrong"

  • (cs) in reply to whiskers

    whiskers:
    Good call on the resignation. I cannot see this company doing anything but declare bankruptcy in the near future.

    In the 2 years the VP was running development, we went from about 10 to about 50 developers, and not a single developer quit.  Plenty were fired for incompetence, but no one developer quit.  Everyone was happy.

    Then as we got bigger, middle management began to take over.  In the 6 months after the VP left, probably about half the developers quit.  And a bunch more were let go because projects were dying on the vine.

    After a while, they were bought out for a fraction of their former value, mostly just for the name value and client base.  The office is still there, but it's a skelaton crew now, pretty much all of the products we built the company on are gone.

  • Jeff (unregistered) in reply to mooney
    mooney:
    At the end of the day, I don't think anyone yelled at the IT guys.  The C*Os were too busy yelling at the dev manager.

    This same dev manager got reprimanded for lots of "counterproductive" stuff, like interuptting a project manager in the middle of a meeting to point out that everything he was saying was a complete lie. 

    The DEV manager got reprimanded?  Did I read it wrong, but wasn't it the IT guys that hadn't been reading the instructions and lied about it?

    Just goes to show that sometimes being right isn't best.  *sigh*

  • Shizzle (unregistered) in reply to mooney
    mooney:

    Anonymous:
    Really what I want to clarify, was the story as follows....

    1) deployments fail because instructions not followed
    2) stern emails get sent about deployments not working
    3) manager decides to start sending instructions in wingdings
    4) 11 more bad deployments
    5) Big meeting with bigwigs, where manager tells that wingdings used on last 11 deployments

    The question being, was it already after they had failed to follow instructions many times that the manager decided to send wingdings to see if they were even reading them?  When I first read the story, it seemed like the manager sent the wingdings from the beginning as a joke.  But instead it was the wingding instructions that got sent after the stern emails and quite a few failed deploys...If this is the case, the dev manager should be rewarded, not reprimanded, for showing that obviously the instructions were never being read.

    After repeated failed deployments, Development started providing installation instructions to IT, and IT was required to follow them.

    For several months, deployments continued to fail, quite obviously because the instructions were not being followed.  When we complained, IT claimed that they had followed the instructions. 

    So, the dev manager hatched a plot and spent several months carrying it out.  So, the dev manager replaced the existing instructions with wingdings.

    note: the instructions were updated every time, and IT was required to read them every time.  I believe there was a change log in the document, but that was in wingdings too.

    The dev manager was reprimanded because of the "poor" way he handled the situation, causing unnecessary controversy.  The point from management tried to make was that if we suspected there was a problem, we should have said something.  The thing is, we did say something, several times.  It was blown off because management didn't feel like dealing with the problem, because it didn't really affect them. 

    C*O: "You're not calling Joe The IT Guy a liar, are you?!?!"

    Dev Manager: "Yes, I am"

    C*O: "Well, you can't call him a liar, that's unprofessional.  And we don't hire liars"

    Dev Manager: "But he is lying.  Here is clear proof."

    C*O: "Stop being difficult.  We don't have time for these arguments, it's not about who is right and wrong"


    OMG if I heard that I would probably just go nuts right there and quit.  Yes, there are times when mistakes have been made, etc., and in which case "it is not about who is right and wrong".  In these cases the important thing is to find the mistake, correct it, and find a way to prevent such mistakes in the future.  Pinning blame on someone for a mistake is not very productive or professional if the issue can be corrected.  But in this case, IT IS ABOUT SOMEONE BEING WRONG.  The lying sack of WTF IT manager is what is wrong, and he *himself* is the mistake, and the discussion should completely and utterly be all about him.  That jerk should have been fired, right there, on the spot.  The fact he wasn't is the real WTF.
  • Complete Coward (unregistered) in reply to jim
    Anonymous:
    This is what you call corporate judo.


    I wonder if this company was USAA by any chance (the names of the departments are strikingly familiar).
  • (cs)

    <FONT color=#000000>Foot in Mouth disease.</FONT>

  • (cs) in reply to Complete Coward

    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    This is what you call corporate judo.


    I wonder if this company was USAA by any chance (the names of the departments are strikingly familiar).

    No it was not.  The names and departments in the OP are fictional.

  • Company COO (unregistered)

    I'm not sure how to react to all of this.  We got rid of the "dead wood"!  They were very unproductive and didn't have any respect for authority.  What else would you expect?

    Signature: The Company's COO (off topic moderate captcha paula spam wing dings xxx wtf fist)

  • elmegil (unregistered) in reply to shnar

    Seems like a good risk to take.

    1) I get the problem fixed

    2) The C*O's fire me, and just as well because they're the root of the problem.

  • elmegil (unregistered) in reply to elmegil

    That was meant to be either 1 or 2....

  • (cs) in reply to Company COO
    Anonymous:

    I'm not sure how to react to all of this.  We got rid of the "dead wood"!  They were very unproductive and didn't have any respect for authority.  What else would you expect?

    They were rounded up with the rest of the Golgafrinchans and cast off.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Golgafrincham

     

  • A Nonny moose (unregistered) in reply to mooney
    mooney:

    Anonymous:
    This is what happens when management doesn't fire people and has meetings instead.

     

    Ha, true. 

    But, they DID end up "releasing" the VP of Development (the dev manager's boss, and a fantastic manager) for being "counterproductive." 

    In addition to his constant battles with the Lumbergs of the company, he replied to an email from the President/COO, detailing line-by-line why every statement in the President made in the email was false, and copied all of the senior management on it.  He was gone the next morning. 

    I resigned the next week, and then began looking for a new job.

    Welcome to the real world, kiddo, where BS floats to the top. 

  • Yaytay (unregistered) in reply to Jeff
    Anonymous:
    mooney:
    At the end of the day, I don't think anyone yelled at the IT guys.  The C*Os were too busy yelling at the dev manager.

    This same dev manager got reprimanded for lots of "counterproductive" stuff, like interuptting a project manager in the middle of a meeting to point out that everything he was saying was a complete lie. 

    The DEV manager got reprimanded?  Did I read it wrong, but wasn't it the IT guys that hadn't been reading the instructions and lied about it?

    Just goes to show that sometimes being right isn't best.  *sigh*

    The dev mgr should have been reprimanded - for not providing a script to do the installation.

    OK, so the ops guys should have been fired, but the dev mgr ain't in the clear here.

    Apparently captcha=poprocks.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to mooney
    mooney:

    Ha, true. 

    But, they DID end up "releasing" the VP of Development (the dev manager's boss, and a fantastic manager) for being "counterproductive." 

    In addition to his constant battles with the Lumbergs of the company, he replied to an email from the President/COO, detailing line-by-line why every statement in the President made in the email was false, and copied all of the senior management on it.  He was gone the next morning. 

    I resigned the next week, and then began looking for a new job.



    Odds are, he knew he was shooting himself in the head, and I'd wager their was a BCC in that email too.
  • (cs) in reply to Yaytay
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    mooney:
    At the end of the day, I don't think anyone yelled at the IT guys.  The C*Os were too busy yelling at the dev manager.

    This same dev manager got reprimanded for lots of "counterproductive" stuff, like interuptting a project manager in the middle of a meeting to point out that everything he was saying was a complete lie. 

    The DEV manager got reprimanded?  Did I read it wrong, but wasn't it the IT guys that hadn't been reading the instructions and lied about it?

    Just goes to show that sometimes being right isn't best.  *sigh*

    The dev mgr should have been reprimanded - for not providing a script to do the installation.

    OK, so the ops guys should have been fired, but the dev mgr ain't in the clear here.


    While a script would have been great, it seems that the dev guys would not have been able to get enough information about the IT setup to make a script that works. I can hear the 'conversation' through the OSI model of that office:
    IT: Your script's broken.
    DEV: What is wrong with it.
    IT It's broken!!!
    DEV: What about it is broken
    IT: It doesn't work.
    DEV:What doesn't work?
    IT: Your Script!!!
    DEV: What about the script doesn't work?
    IT: It doesn't install the software!
    MANAGEMENT: This deployment is overdue!!! Provide IT with a WORKING script object NOW!!!
    DEV: ....
  • Nick (unregistered) in reply to Bus Raker
    Bus Raker:
    Anonymous:

    Funny thing is in explorer, a tool tip is shown that does the translation for you.

    Why does the 'it' have three characters then?


    "It" is followed by an ellipsis.

  • (cs)

    I'm trying to fathom the Net Ops manager strategy. Did he think that by instead of actually trying to solve the problem it would be better to lie and obstruct and finger-point? Was his plan that to frustrate dev so consistently that the whole corp would just give up on making internal apps, and IT can get on with its Everquest marathons?

    Or maybe he just didn't think ahead at all. Seems to have worked so far....

    --RA

Leave a comment on “Symbolic Installation”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article