• Tachyon (cs)

    This puts swamps vb monstrosity to shame...

  • NaN (cs)

    The enterprisey solution would have been to stay and make his way to online stardom by submitting manymanymany more WTFs.

  • dave (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that they didn't use RoR.

  • Padraic (unregistered)

    OUCH.

    "This seems kind of kludgey." "Oh, we can patch that."

  • Teh Irish Gril Riot (unregistered)

    Colin was lucky to be able to move on in two weeks.

    With my luck, I'd be stuck at that job for several months before I found something new. Then again, the job market around my locale isn't that great for IT - even with years of C++, a few years of .NET using C# (Web and Win Forms), MS-SQL, and The Ever Popular New Kid That Everyone Wants to hang out with because he's the Second Coming... SharePoint.

  • SlyEcho (unregistered)

    The only thing missing was a wooden table.

  • gabba (cs)

    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.

  • Dave (unregistered)

    What package is Magic!! in?

    Captcha: sagaciter*

    *Cos it seems to be tradition to note at the end of the post here :P

  • Teh Irish Gril Riot (unregistered) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.

    lawlz ... in sympathetic understanding.

  • snoofle (cs)

    At my previous position, I too, found myself in the midst of one big WTF, and wound up leaving after 4 weeks.

    When I resigned, the manager had a major hissey fit. At the time, I felt guilty about leaving them in a lurch, even though they were clueless, but after his completely unprofessional explosion, I felt totally vindicated in my decision to leave.

    Sometimes, it's simply a matter of self defense.

  • zip (unregistered) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.

    2/10, even the biggest M$ hater wouldn't try to claim that "an instance of Outlook running on the virtual XP machine to move the emails around" is caused by M$'s interfaces and not developer retardation.

  • DeLos (cs) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.

    Really? So choosing Linux was a sound decision when you need the server to run windows apps? Running Outlook to move files around (I am assuming using filters? It doesn't quite say). That is all ok?

  • Schnapple (unregistered) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.

    Nice try. Exchange has an SDK. They could have made this programmatic. Instead they required an instance of Outlook. The real reason? The programmer didn't know how to do things through the SDK but could figure out Outlook. I'd bet that the "moving emails around" bit was really Rules in Outlook.

    What was happening here really was that the lead developer was paranoid. He didn't want to check in code because he was paranoid that once they had the code they might not need him as much anymore and could fire him and replace him. He was cagey with Colin because he thought Colin was being groomed to be his replacement. He's either got a very paranoid personality or he's gunshy because he's been laid off before (possibly both).

  • Vanders (cs) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces?

    Well no, not really. If they really had to use Linux as the platform, there were still plenty of better solutions than the one they chose. The most obvious would have been to use IMAP to access the mailbox, or even POP3 if the software didn't require anything more than sucking in an email and processing it. If for some reason they absolutely could not use anything other than MAPI to access the Exchange server, non-Microsoft solutions exist.

    The WTF is that it appears they chose the OS first, then realised at some point they had to run Windows after all so they shoved it in a virtual machine. 10/10 for creative thinking, 0/10 for actual thought.

  • DeLos (cs) in reply to zip

    Damn you stealing my thoughts as I am typing them!!

  • Teh Irish Gril Riot (unregistered) in reply to Vanders
    Vanders:
    The most obvious would have been to use IMAP to access the mailbox, or even POP3 if the software didn't require anything more than sucking in an email and processing it.

    Agreed - my first thought was IMAPI. It doesn't sound like the "lead developer" was open to suggestions though. The good move on, the untalented entrench.

  • Godwin (unregistered)

    The Real WTF (TM) is that it should be "Two Weeks' Notice" - with a lovely apostrophe!

  • TechnoSpaz (unregistered) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.

    I see why Colin quit. You really are cagey.

  • vt_mruhlin (cs)

    Surely it wouldn't be that hard to write a method to check whether or not there was a dialog in Outlook and blindly click OK.

  • Teh Irish Gril Riot (unregistered) in reply to Teh Irish Gril Riot
    Teh Irish Gril Riot:
    Vanders:
    The most obvious would have been to use IMAP to access the mailbox, or even POP3 if the software didn't require anything more than sucking in an email and processing it.

    Agreed - my first thought was IMAPI. It doesn't sound like the "lead developer" was open to suggestions though. The good move on, the untalented entrench.

    /sigh...

    IMAP

    I give. This is going to be one of those days... again. LOL

  • morry (unregistered)

    I can totally sympathize with his decision to leave, but I think the final action should have been to do his damnedest to kick the heels out from under the lead developer (or whatever the cliche is). Probably an impossible task, but it gives you a way to blame the management for your departure, as they are "preventing you from doing your job". It'd at least show you if the CTO is in your corner, or the lead developers.

  • HockeyGod (cs)

    At least he got paid. I once left a company and when I asked for my last check they said "by our calculations you spent X hours in the bathroom over the last 1.5 years, as well as Y hours in the break room getting a soda from the vending machine. We're keeping this amount of money to make up for all of that wasted time.

  • JUST ANOTHER WTF (unregistered) in reply to vt_mruhlin
    vt_mruhlin:
    Surely it wouldn't be that hard to write a method to check whether or not there was a dialog in Outlook and blindly click OK.

    I believe there is a professional version of ClickOk...

    So not only is it doable... but its been done and packaged and upgraded and being used in 'enterprise' solutions around the world...

    sad... so sad...

  • S (unregistered) in reply to Godwin
    Godwin:
    The Real WTF (TM) is that it should be "Two Weeks' Notice" - with a lovely apostrophe!

    Why?

  • snoofle (cs) in reply to HockeyGod
    HockeyGod:
    At least he got paid. I once left a company and when I asked for my last check they said "by our calculations you spent X hours in the bathroom over the last 1.5 years, as well as Y hours in the break room getting a soda from the vending machine. We're keeping this amount of money to make up for all of that wasted time.
    That's probably illegal - you could make a very good case against them in court. And before the flames begin, yes, this IS one of those cases where you push for your rights, especially if it's a significant amount of money! See: (assuming USA) Federal Department of Labor.
  • SuperQ (unregistered) in reply to Dave
    Dave:
    What package is Magic!! in?

    $ dpkg -S /etc/magic file: /etc/magic

  • some peon (unregistered) in reply to HockeyGod
    HockeyGod:
    At least he got paid. I once left a company and when I asked for my last check they said "by our calculations you spent X hours in the bathroom over the last 1.5 years, as well as Y hours in the break room getting a soda from the vending machine. We're keeping this amount of money to make up for all of that wasted time.

    And then you sued the shit out of them.

  • Patrick (unregistered) in reply to vt_mruhlin
    vt_mruhlin:
    Surely it wouldn't be that hard to write a method to check whether or not there was a dialog in Outlook and blindly click OK.

    So, would that be the glass bottle or the dirty shoe?

  • Joe (unregistered)

    Perhaps TRWTF is that they were actually able to sell this Rube Goldberg design.

  • Grammar Guessing Boy (unregistered) in reply to S

    It's the notice belonging to the weeks? </guess>

    Ah, pedantry is alive and well!

  • Ben (unregistered) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.

    You should do some research before lashing out at things you don't understand. I have also had to interact with Exchange in many ways and easily found the SDK and got to work. It's not that hard. These people were idiots.

    It sounds like they didn't bother studying up on the Exchange SDK and went with MAPI, which requires Outlook to be installed.

    The problem with MAPI is that you will run into Outlook's security model. At this point they failed AGAIN, not doing the research to discover that Microsoft provides a security template that can tweak or turn off the Outlook security model in an Exchange environment (where it's assumed you have control and know what you're doing). We had to do that because of some legacy VB apps that needed to send e-mail and did it via MAPI instead of SMTP (someday I'll rewrite those...someday...). Before we got that setup, it was easy to use ClickOnce to simulate the button clicks.

    Our server app talks to Exchange directly and it was not that hard to get working--maybe 200 lines of code wrapped in a simple, easy-to-use class that exposed what we needed.

    BTW, I figured all of this out from doing a few hours of web research (plus the hours of learning of the Exchange SDK), never having programmed against Outlook or Exchange before.

    Don't excuse stupidity or ignorance by blaming it on 3rd parties.

  • Havok (unregistered) in reply to HockeyGod
    HockeyGod:
    At least he got paid. I once left a company and when I asked for my last check they said "by our calculations you spent X hours in the bathroom over the last 1.5 years, as well as Y hours in the break room getting a soda from the vending machine. We're keeping this amount of money to make up for all of that wasted time.

    Ha ! You could have won that check by legal actions.

  • GF (unregistered) in reply to HockeyGod

    If you work in the US, the labor code requires them to allow you certain amount of time in break periods on a daily basis. You could probably get that money from them if you were determined...

  • Edward Royce (unregistered) in reply to dave
    dave:
    TRWTF is that they didn't use RoR.

    Is this sarcastic? Just curious as I'm taking some time to learn RoR. If there are any serious WTFs in RoR I'd like to know now.

  • GF (unregistered) in reply to Godwin
    Godwin:
    The Real WTF (TM) is that it should be "Two Weeks' Notice" - with a lovely apostrophe!
    Does the notice belong to the two weeks?

    "I will be leaving after a period of two weeks"... "notice of leaving in two weeks"... "two weeks notice".

  • Burned (unregistered) in reply to Edward Royce
    Is this sarcastic? Just curious as I'm taking some time to learn RoR. If there are any serious WTFs in RoR I'd like to know now.
    Yes. The fact that it's RoR. Trust me. Don't go there.
  • gabba (cs) in reply to Ben
    Ben:
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.

    You should do some research before lashing out at things you don't understand. I have also had to interact with Exchange in many ways and easily found the SDK and got to work. It's not that hard. These people were idiots.

    It sounds like they didn't bother studying up on the Exchange SDK and went with MAPI, which requires Outlook to be installed.

    The problem with MAPI is that you will run into Outlook's security model. At this point they failed AGAIN, not doing the research to discover that Microsoft provides a security template that can tweak or turn off the Outlook security model in an Exchange environment (where it's assumed you have control and know what you're doing). We had to do that because of some legacy VB apps that needed to send e-mail and did it via MAPI instead of SMTP (someday I'll rewrite those...someday...). Before we got that setup, it was easy to use ClickOnce to simulate the button clicks.

    Our server app talks to Exchange directly and it was not that hard to get working--maybe 200 lines of code wrapped in a simple, easy-to-use class that exposed what we needed.

    BTW, I figured all of this out from doing a few hours of web research (plus the hours of learning of the Exchange SDK), never having programmed against Outlook or Exchange before.

    Don't excuse stupidity or ignorance by blaming it on 3rd parties.

    Did you read the article? Their platform was Linux. Exchange SDK is Windows-only.

    Others mentioned using POP3 or IMAP. Many or most sites don't enable either one. The suggestion of using the 42tools product was a good one, however.

    And yes, the lead developer and CTO were idiots. But you don't know that from the fact that they had to jump through hoops to interface to a Microsoft component.

  • real_aardvark (cs) in reply to dave
    dave:
    TRWTF is that they didn't use RoR.
    I'm so sick of these fan-boy posts. You just don't get it, do you? This is NOT a post about Ruby. This is a post about Perl, you moron.

    So, obviously:

    TRWTF is that they didn't use Catalyst.

    (Well, I'm being forced to use it at the moment, so I have an excuse...)

  • Edward Royce (unregistered) in reply to JUST ANOTHER WTF
    JUST ANOTHER WTF:
    vt_mruhlin:
    Surely it wouldn't be that hard to write a method to check whether or not there was a dialog in Outlook and blindly click OK.

    I believe there is a professional version of ClickOk...

    So not only is it doable... but its been done and packaged and upgraded and being used in 'enterprise' solutions around the world...

    sad... so sad...

    Man I don't know which is more pathetic.

    That I didn't know something like ClickOk existed, or that there was actually a need for it.

  • Edward Royce (unregistered) in reply to Joe
    Joe:
    Perhaps TRWTF is that they were actually able to sell this Rube Goldberg design.

    I'm sorry to say that there are a lot of such weird "systems" out there.

    I wonder if there's a potential business in advising companies when their dev teams, PMs or projects are just total and complete nonsense.

  • QuinnFazigu (cs) in reply to morry
    morry:
    I can totally sympathize with his decision to leave, but I think the final action should have been to do his damnedest to kick the heels out from under the lead developer

    Colin could have tried harder to change things. It sounds as if he realized the lead dev was stubborn and gave up. The boss's reaction wasn't professional, but wasn't too far off with his likewise accusations.

    If the lead dev wasn't allowing Colin to do any useful work, he should have brought that up with the CTO instead of just quitting. There isn't any indication that Colin expressed his frustrations -- things got rough and his first reaction was to just quit.

  • Ben (unregistered) in reply to gabba
    gabba:

    Did you read the article? Their platform was Linux. Exchange SDK is Windows-only.

    Others mentioned using POP3 or IMAP. Many or most sites don't enable either one. The suggestion of using the 42tools product was a good one, however.

    And yes, the lead developer and CTO were idiots. But you don't know that from the fact that they had to jump through hoops to interface to a Microsoft component.

    Did you? They HAD to interface with Exchange. They did not HAVE to use Linux--that's a separate WTF altogether. Given that they were using Exchange and Windows anyway, they should have researched appropriate solutions instead of doing the dumbest thing possible.

  • real_aardvark (cs) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.
    Well, it sort of is, really. Perl does a pretty good job of breaking through the opacity ... as long as you base your server on Windows. (The package in question is OLE32, IIRC.)

    Putting it on Linux, whilst admirable in the sort of way that Henry Kissinger performing a bungee-jump off the Brooklyn Bridge without attaching the bungee first would be admirable, is, in fact, fucking stupid.

    Just for my own information, what exactly is "a managed information appliance?"

    Does it come with a bottle of special lotion?

    Do we need to plug it in to the mains?

    What's the kilohertz on one of these babies? I think I need to be told...

  • Edward Royce (unregistered) in reply to Burned
    Burned:
    Is this sarcastic? Just curious as I'm taking some time to learn RoR. If there are any serious WTFs in RoR I'd like to know now.
    Yes. The fact that it's RoR. Trust me. Don't go there.

    Oh hell. It was mostly for giggles anyways.

    Thanks!

  • Ian Menzies (unregistered)
    Colin chose the former.
    I think you mean he chose the latter, unless you are implying that he decided the risk of losing the check was worse than getting chewed out by the CTO and there is a Part 2 coming in which he gives the CTO an earful and gets the original developer canned.
  • Thuktun (cs) in reply to gabba
    gabba:
    So they had to jump through some hoops to get around Microsoft's closed, opaque interfaces? The WTF ain't on the part of Colin's employer here, folks.
    And wrapping a Windows-only solution in an HTTP web application and embedding it on a Linux box helps that somehow? And putting the compiled binaries into source control instead of the source? Puh-lease.

    Of course, that might not be the employer's fault, but it most certainly was their problem.

  • Wikipedia (unregistered) in reply to GF
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Pat (unregistered) in reply to S
    S:
    Godwin:
    The Real WTF (TM) is that it should be "Two Weeks' Notice" - with a lovely apostrophe!

    Why?

    Think about it for a minute.

    'Two Weeks' is Colin's new nickname because he only worked for two weeks. Thus, the title should be 'Two Weeks' Notice".

    I didn't get it at first either, but if I complained about vague punchlines, I'd be a hypocrite.

  • Michael (unregistered) in reply to Dave
    Comment held for moderation.
  • WhiskeyJack (cs) in reply to Ian Menzies
    Ian Menzies:
    Colin chose the former.
    I think you mean he chose the latter, unless you are implying that he decided the risk of losing the check was worse than getting chewed out by the CTO and there is a Part 2 coming in which he gives the CTO an earful and gets the original developer canned.

    No, I'm fairly sure he chose the former. Look at the way the wording is for the latter option. They'll promise to mail you a cheque, using a non-trackable, non-priority mail service, and ask you to sign a waiver disclaiming their responsibility should that cheque somehow get "lost in the mail". Do you really think he would have ever seen that cheque?

    I'd withstand a bit of yelling, especially if I knew I was justified, in order to make sure I got that money.

Leave a comment on “Two Weeks Notice”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article