• Belcat (unregistered)

    Sometimes it just pays to keep your mouth shut! Don't mention you tweaked the system :)

  • (cs)

    That is PAINFUL.

    Painful in so many places.

    I tend not to tell people how systems are integrated - it pisses them off.

    We recently got a telephone system installed that saved files on "a chip on the phone", I was told repeatedly that "phones aren't like IT", although they requested a windows XP system be set up to serve the phone system.

    We asked them if we could be emailed when a new voice mail came in - we were told no way, "Phones aren't like IT". "Everything is stored on chips inside the phones, the missed calls, the recordings, everything".

    I found that MySQL runs as root on the server they set up. With no password. It has a table for voicemail - it also lists a long URI that links to a file in a folder full of MP3 voicemails.

    Now our server connects to theirs periodically to check for new voice mails and sends an email out to whoever missed it in less than 100 lines of code.

    I'll tell the full story one day. It'd be a relatively ok WTF.

  • snews (unregistered)

    "Entreprisy".

  • (cs)

    Oh my God. I still remember EDIFACT. I need alcohol - STAT!

  • raptur (unregistered) in reply to DazP

    ahhhahhaha sounds brilliant ^_^

  • (cs)
    alexp:
    Invoices not received in this manner will be discounted 2% and extended 60-90 days.
    Is it just me, or would this make more sense if it said "penalized"? Or better yet, without the "not"?
  • (cs)
    Alex:
    They’re Unix-based client was up and running several months before the deadline.

    What?

  • ben (unregistered)

    This is far from the first time. Some people are just incapable of learning simple stuff.

  • SomeCoder (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    alexp:
    Invoices not received in this manner will be discounted 2% and extended 60-90 days.
    Is it just me, or would this make more sense if it said "penalized"? Or better yet, without the "not"?

    It could be a typo, but I think what is meant is that they will discount any bill they get by 2% and extend the payment period by 60-90 days. In otherwords, you send them a bill without using their system, they will knock 2% off it and pay you 60-90 days later.

    That's how I read it anyway.

  • Enterprise Strength (unregistered)
    Enterprise Business Systems:
    As I’m sure you’re aware, our primary focus at Enterprise Business Systems is to enable our clients to formulate key objectives through strategic initiatives to develop a comprehensive strategy that will provide the critical foundation for creating a proactive, synergy-driven directive for utilizing technological approaches to achieve cross-departmental -- snip --

    I bet that enterprisey waffle went on for a good three pages before they finally got to the single paragraph of actual useful information.

  • (cs)

    So if I understand this correctly, after the changes we have:

    Unix client application communicates with ->
  Windows app which ->
  translates to fixed width and calls -> 
  library to convert to EDIFACT, then uses -> 
  modem to send to remote server which -> 
  converts back to fixed width format, and -> 
  writes to flat file, then  -> 
  file monitor scans for file and -> 
  sends to printer -> 
  paper -> 
  manual reentry

    gasp

  • (cs) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    Alex:
    They’re Unix-based client was up and running several months before the deadline.

    What?

    OMG! How brillant you are to have caught that! Wow!

  • Human Machine-To-Machine Interface (unregistered)
    When a QuikBill client sends a bill over the modem, the server translates the EDIFACT message to a fixed-column formatted file and saved to disk. A printer then picks up the formatted file and prints the invoice on a form. From there, an accounts payable clerk takes the form off the printer and types it in to their voucher system to be paid.
    Clearly a very important step has not been mentioned here: At some stage they must be taking a picture of the printed invoice... on a wooden table.
  • Dave (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    So if I understand this correctly, after the changes we have: 
    Unix client application communicates with ->
  Windows app which ->
  translates to fixed width and calls -> 
  library to convert to EDIFACT, then uses -> 
  modem to send to remote server which -> 
  converts back to fixed width format, and -> 
  writes to flat file, then  -> 
  file monitor scans for file and -> 
  sends to printer -> 
  paper -> 
  manual reentry

    gasp

    Double gasp. No wooden table.

  • MIrko (unregistered)

    EDIFACT is a living hell. period.

    I Tried to build a reader/writer from scratch, I wasn't even close.

    I was able to find and reuse a previous program, only to find that a lot of codes were not even mentioned in the documentation.

    Fortunately I managed to transfer that corpse to another department.

  • (cs) in reply to Human Machine-To-Machine Interface
    it was up to Simon to ensure that that the two company’s systems could talk.

    two companies'

  • DazP (unregistered) in reply to merreborn
    merreborn:
    it was up to Simon to ensure that that the two company’s systems could talk.

    Two companies'!

    You stand corrected.

  • (cs)

    This comment has been sent down a modem to a printer and personally re-typed in by Alex Papadimoulis

  • Bill Quick (unregistered)
    Within a week, an EBS “integration engineer” was flown out to Simon’s company to “monitor the development of and certify their solution.” (...) He set up a Windows server and modified the invoice exporter to create a file in their fixed-width format and then send it to the Windows server, which would allow the “real” QuikBill to convert the file to EDIFACT and send it to their server.
    If they were running the "real" QuikBill on a "real" Windows machine, then why was there any need to monitor and certify their solution? I mean, they just used QuikBill as it was meant to be used, they didn't run their own replacement for QuikBill any longer, did they?

    Not to mention that Simon should have done exactly done that in the first place... While it may look easy and tempting to roll your own solution, if all you have to do is buy a Windows PC and run the existing solution on it, no development of your own, no matter how easy it looked, is going to be any cheaper than that -- or am I missing something here?

  • Buddy (unregistered)

    I got a laugh out of "...just happened to mention...". You become so familiar with a deception you forget about it.

    We had an internal timesheet application written by a real ass (henceforth known as the guy). VB exe - very complex - unbelievably hard to use - faggy as can be. He basically built it to fit his high resolution jumbo monitor. Most of the forms were too large on our wimpy systems to see everything. You had to count tabs to get to the right part of the form. Our comptroller had a hard time getting weekly and monthly reports, apparently each one was custom-made by the guy, who would prepare them when he had the time.

    After a few months, we got fed up with it and decided to write our own timesheet solution on our intranet using HTML and a server side scripting language. To do that I needed the server name, username and password to gain access to the DB. Repeatedly asked the guy, told him what I wanted to do, that it would save him time, help everyone out, etc. He told me he had to ask the supervisor, or didn't have them at hand, or was doing some updates, or various other stalling tactics. Escalated to our super, same stalling tactics from the guy. We got tired of waiting, so the super told me in private do what it takes, get it done.

    On a hunch I opened the VB exe in Notepad and searched, saw what I needed right there in glorious plaintext. After getting access to the DB and figured out his retarded schema, I wrote up a few pages in a day or so. Much simplified and intuitive interface, worked with any screen resolution, large fonts, etc. The comptroller could get his reports as often as he wanted and get them instantly. Was a big hit in the office.

    Not wanting to upset the guy, we dispersed the timesheet links privately, and gave explicit instructions that if asked by the guy, to disavow any knowledge of the links, how they got them, why they have them, etc.

    Everything worked great for a long time. The pages were using his DB and schema so everything was updating okay. The guy didn't seem to notice the comptroller wasn't asking him for reports any more, that he wasn't getting requests for this or that improvement to the UI, or even the timesheet pages people would have up on their screens every Friday.

    To this day he likely wouldn't have known had I not opened my big mouth during an update and mentioned some revisions I was doing to the timesheet pages that week. To be fair, we were sitting in a configuration where I couldn't see him, and so it slipped out. It was funny when everyone else tried to look shocked, too. Really? A new timesheet! Wow, you have to show me it sometime.

    Eventually he realized at least some of the extent of the deception. He felt pretty crappy. We let him go a few months later.

  • (cs) in reply to Bill Quick
    Bill Quick:
    Within a week, an EBS “integration engineer” was flown out to Simon’s company to “monitor the development of and certify their solution.” (...) He set up a Windows server and modified the invoice exporter to create a file in their fixed-width format and then send it to the Windows server, which would allow the “real” QuikBill to convert the file to EDIFACT and send it to their server.
    If they were running the "real" QuikBill on a "real" Windows machine, then why was there any need to monitor and certify their solution? I mean, they just used QuikBill as it was meant to be used, they didn't run their own replacement for QuikBill any longer, did they?

    Not to mention that Simon should have done exactly done that in the first place... While it may look easy and tempting to roll your own solution, if all you have to do is buy a Windows PC and run the existing solution on it, no development of your own, no matter how easy it looked, is going to be any cheaper than that -- or am I missing something here?

    That depends on the existing environment. An all *nix shop isn't likely to have many PC's (at least not in test, qa, prod and dr (depending upon the size of the shop). There may be requirements to have hot-standby boxes available. All of a sudden, something simple like throwing a PC at it can involve purchasing multiple boxes, cross-over hot-swap software, data center racking, electrical and phone work, standard monitoring of both hardware and software, and other such annoyances.

    Of course, if Simon was the only programmer, none of this is likely to apply. More likely, he just worked with the resources he had available (his *nix box).

  • DazP (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    Bill Quick:
    Within a week, an EBS “integration engineer” was flown out to Simon’s company to “monitor the development of and certify their solution.” (...) He set up a Windows server and modified the invoice exporter to create a file in their fixed-width format and then send it to the Windows server, which would allow the “real” QuikBill to convert the file to EDIFACT and send it to their server.
    If they were running the "real" QuikBill on a "real" Windows machine, then why was there any need to monitor and certify their solution? I mean, they just used QuikBill as it was meant to be used, they didn't run their own replacement for QuikBill any longer, did they?

    Not to mention that Simon should have done exactly done that in the first place... While it may look easy and tempting to roll your own solution, if all you have to do is buy a Windows PC and run the existing solution on it, no development of your own, no matter how easy it looked, is going to be any cheaper than that -- or am I missing something here?

    That depends on the existing environment. An all *nix shop isn't likely to have many PC's (at least not in test, qa, prod and dr (depending upon the size of the shop). There may be requirements to have hot-standby boxes available. All of a sudden, something simple like throwing a PC at it can involve purchasing multiple boxes, cross-over hot-swap software, data center racking, electrical and phone work, standard monitoring of both hardware and software, and other such annoyances.

    Of course, if Simon was the only programmer, none of this is likely to apply. More likely, he just worked with the resources he had available (his *nix box).

    Wouldn't he still have had to integrate it with their systems on unix anyway?!

    Erm, yeah, your solution sounds great.

  • Niki (unregistered) in reply to Bill Quick

    [quote user="Bill Quick"] [/quote] Not to mention that Simon should have done exactly done that in the first place... While it may look easy and tempting to roll your own solution, if all you have to do is buy a Windows PC and run the existing solution on it, no development of your own, no matter how easy it looked, is going to be any cheaper than that -- or am I missing something here? [/quote]You're missing the part where Simon modified the invoice exporter (that originally sent the EDIFACT to the server) to instead convert it to the fixed-width format and send it to the windows PC.

    So both solutions involve development, and the former would probably be a lot more stable than the latter.

  • Chris (unregistered) in reply to MIrko

    I had fun with EDIFACT. The company I was with had an expert on the standards board. Half the time we came up with a question he planned to take the question to the next meeting and change the standard. Problem was we needed it implemented before his next meeting...

  • Niki (unregistered) in reply to Niki

    FAIL

    Bill Quick:
    Not to mention that Simon should have done exactly done that in the first place... While it may look easy and tempting to roll your own solution, if all you have to do is buy a Windows PC and run the existing solution on it, no development of your own, no matter how easy it looked, is going to be any cheaper than that -- or am I missing something here?
    You're missing the part where Simon modified the invoice exporter (that originally sent the EDIFACT to the server) to instead convert it to the fixed-width format and send it to the windows PC.

    So both solutions involve development, and the former would probably be a lot more stable than the latter.

  • n0t 1337 h4xx0r (unregistered)

    Oh my god! The whole scheme of data processing... Well, that's called a Moo-programming in our company. Gosh, it's good that a shop with beer is nearby...

  • Ash (unregistered) in reply to KenW

    Correction:

    OMG! How brillant you're to have caught that! Wow!

  • Dan (unregistered) in reply to Bill Quick
    Bill Quick:
    Within a week, an EBS “integration engineer” was flown out to Simon’s company to “monitor the development of and certify their solution.” (...) He set up a Windows server and modified the invoice exporter to create a file in their fixed-width format and then send it to the Windows server, which would allow the “real” QuikBill to convert the file to EDIFACT and send it to their server.
    If they were running the "real" QuikBill on a "real" Windows machine, then why was there any need to monitor and certify their solution? I mean, they just used QuikBill as it was meant to be used, they didn't run their own replacement for QuikBill any longer, did they?

    Not to mention that Simon should have done exactly done that in the first place... While it may look easy and tempting to roll your own solution, if all you have to do is buy a Windows PC and run the existing solution on it, no development of your own, no matter how easy it looked, is going to be any cheaper than that -- or am I missing something here?

    It would depend on the hourly rate and how long it actually took Simon to write the solution. In addition, you have the auxiliary costs of going through the procurement process of buying a new machine, buying MS Windows, buying the QuickBill client, and then supporting the new system, which will require a new hire or at least training, possibly certification, the implementation of corporate policies, ad nausea.
  • Dan (unregistered)

    The real WTF is that Simon bothered to tell a rep implementation details.

  • Jean Naimard (unregistered) in reply to Pol
    Pol:
    This comment has been sent down a modem to a printer and personally re-typed in by Alex Papadimoulis
    You forgot the part where the printed sheet was faxed, then OCRed into a Word document of which a screenshot was taken, then e-mailed to Alex’s mother who then phoned him and dictated the actual message to him…
  • sewiv (unregistered) in reply to Bill Quick
    Bill Quick:
    If they were running the "real" QuikBill on a "real" Windows machine, then why was there any need to monitor and certify their solution? I mean, they just used QuikBill as it was meant to be used, they didn't run their own replacement for QuikBill any longer, did they?

    Not to mention that Simon should have done exactly done that in the first place... While it may look easy and tempting to roll your own solution, if all you have to do is buy a Windows PC and run the existing solution on it, no development of your own, no matter how easy it looked, is going to be any cheaper than that -- or am I missing something here?

    Certification of the solution platform. Redundant failover hardware. Licensing of two copies of the OS and software for the failover. Purchase, installation, and setup of two additional servers. The stupidity of running an entire server with failover for one Windows program when everything else in your shop is on unix. All of which is already covered by just doing it on your already existing redundant platform. Oh, and transferring the data from the unix system where it's generated to the Windows box to be translated, that's got to be handled.

    We do this now, can you guess? It wasn't implemented properly, so it's running on a PC. It's a serious pain, and we've got a mission-critical system that runs on a PC with no backup. It was supposed to be "only temporary". 3 years ago.

    I hate IDOCs.

  • benh (unregistered)

    TRWTF: Setting up a single Windows machine that only facilitated QuickBill would've been cheaper, easier, and faster.

  • (cs) in reply to Dan

    I once made the mistake of telling a Cox sales rep I would be using Linux and wouldn't need their installation-setup CD they were trying to tell me how to use. I was promptly informed that only Windows comps can access the internet and she would now cancel the appointment to have the techs come to my house to establish online service. She said nobody is online with Linux, you need Windows or Mac.

  • SomeCoder (unregistered) in reply to JDeepBeep
    JDeepBeep:
    I once made the mistake of telling a Cox sales rep I would be using Linux and wouldn't need their installation-setup CD they were trying to tell me how to use. I was promptly informed that only Windows comps can access the internet and she would now cancel the appointment to have the techs come to my house to establish online service. She said nobody is online with Linux, you need Windows or Mac.

    That reminds me of the Comcast tech who insisted that my computer had to be installed with their ad-ware or I couldn't access the internet.

    Finally he said "ok well you'll have to go online to download this software before you can access the internet".

    Yes, he actually said that.

  • Serpardum (unregistered) in reply to JDeepBeep
    JDeepBeep:
    I once made the mistake of telling a Cox sales rep I would be using Linux and wouldn't need their installation-setup CD they were trying to tell me how to use. I was promptly informed that only Windows comps can access the internet and she would now cancel the appointment to have the techs come to my house to establish online service. She said nobody is online with Linux, you need Windows or Mac.

    I've done things like that before, but quick thinking usually saves the day, "Oh, you mean my operating sytem? Yeah, that's Windows. My word processor is named Linux, I get those confused sometimes. I will need the CD."

  • Naleag Deco (unregistered) in reply to JDeepBeep

    I had the opposite reaction with Rogers way back when, trying to figure out why my Linux box and router weren't working properly with the service. This was back when routers were not yet supported.

    Yeah it was three in the morning and yeah it was tech support, but I was pretty sure it wasn't at my end. The person on the other end of the phone was pretty interested in how I set up the client, probably out of curiosity. Turned out it was an issue on their end, though.

  • (cs) in reply to benh
    benh:
    TRWTF: Setting up a single Windows machine that only facilitated QuickBill would've been cheaper, easier, and faster.

    Read everything that follows "or am I missing something here?" above. We had a guy that was going to install a swipe-card controlled lock system which would need to be controlled by a DOS machine. That's right, I was going to have to pull a 486 (more likely a P-100) out of the closet and install an illegitimate copy of MS-DOS (more likely Win98 set to run in DOS mode) on a several hundred MB HDD just for this... it might have needed its own monitor, perhaps even a desk if not for KVMs. UGLY UGLY UGLY. All it needed was access to a serial port but he assured me that it had to be the real thing-- No Win4Lin, no WINE, no Dosemu, no FreeDOS, or the delightful little control program would freak out (robust, eh?). It actually never got installed... I guess it was to be donated but the company never accumulated enough spare parts.

    I'm happy that someone got to avoid all that, and it worked well enough that nobody found out on their own. I was eager to see how I might satisfy the app in some other way on principle, and disprove the claims of absolutely requiring a real DOS environment.

    Plus at the time I was a rabid Linux zealot.

  • (cs) in reply to SomeCoder
    SomeCoder:
    JDeepBeep:
    I once made the mistake of telling a Cox sales rep I would be using Linux and wouldn't need their installation-setup CD they were trying to tell me how to use. I was promptly informed that only Windows comps can access the internet and she would now cancel the appointment to have the techs come to my house to establish online service. She said nobody is online with Linux, you need Windows or Mac.

    That reminds me of the Comcast tech who insisted that my computer had to be installed with their ad-ware or I couldn't access the internet.

    Finally he said "ok well you'll have to go online to download this software before you can access the internet".

    Yes, he actually said that.

    "Ok, I'm at google, what do I search for so I can download the ad-ware program? Ah crap, these IM's keep popping up."

    But in all seriousness, I think it's possible to access your ISPs local network while not being able to access everything (either by design or a network failure).

  • (cs) in reply to SomeCoder
    That reminds me of the Comcast tech who insisted that my computer had to be installed with their ad-ware or I couldn't access the internet.

    Finally he said "ok well you'll have to go online to download this software before you can access the internet".

    Similar experience when setting up CHSI in my townhouse. I'd only partly moved in, the only even remotely serviceable PC was an old G3 running MacOS 8.6.

    Thinking they were going to just need to grab an IP from the cablemodem, I sat down and set up the network connection to use DHCP. But the modem was in their walled garden until I confirmed my street address, billing info, set up a comcast.net e-mail, yadda yadda using a proprietary (OSX or Windows only) app.

    Naturally the guy insisted on letting him do it.

    Him: Here, just run the installer on this CD. Me: I don't think it'll work, man. This is MacOS 8... Him: takes the mouse How do you get to "My Computer"? Me: You...don't? Him: Uh huh. So, where's "My Computer"? Me: ...It's not a Windows PC. Him: Uh huh. clicks Apple menu clicks menu bar Me: Look, is there some other way to get the modem to give us an IP address? Him: Gotta find "My Computer" first.

    A 10-minute call to tech support did it. I wonder if the original dude even realized there were computers that could access the internet prior to Windows 95.

  • SomeCoder (unregistered) in reply to sootzoo
    sootzoo:

    Similar experience when setting up CHSI in my townhouse. I'd only partly moved in, the only even remotely serviceable PC was an old G3 running MacOS 8.6.

    Thinking they were going to just need to grab an IP from the cablemodem, I sat down and set up the network connection to use DHCP. But the modem was in their walled garden until I confirmed my street address, billing info, set up a comcast.net e-mail, yadda yadda using a proprietary (OSX or Windows only) app.

    Yeah, AT&T's DSL is like that. The modem has something set up in it to direct all web traffic to some proprietary web app setup in it. IE only, tons of Javascript errors, etc.

    Luckily, you only have to make it work long enough to verify your address and you can get online after that. I managed to force it to do that much and then promptly closed the damn thing.

    Comcast, on the other hand, does not force you to do anything to get online other than plug into the modem (how it should be) though their techs swear otherwise.

  • Survey User 2338 (unregistered)

    How do I get the job where I sit in the chair and read magazines for $200 per hour? The fact that I don't have that job is the RWTF...

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to SomeCoder
    SomeCoder:
    snoofle:
    alexp:
    Invoices not received in this manner will be discounted 2% and extended 60-90 days.
    Is it just me, or would this make more sense if it said "penalized"? Or better yet, without the "not"?

    It could be a typo, but I think what is meant is that they will discount any bill they get by 2% and extend the payment period by 60-90 days. In otherwords, you send them a bill without using their system, they will knock 2% off it and pay you 60-90 days later.

    That's how I read it anyway.

    Makes sense, if you don't use their billing system they probably have to have somebody print it out and manually enter it, incurring extra cost.

    ...Oh right!

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Survey User 2338
    Survey User 2338:
    How do I get the job where I sit in the chair and read magazines for $200 per hour? The fact that I don't have that job is the RWTF...

    If you knew it is "TRWTF" and not "the RWTF" you'd probably have a job. Those kind of mistakes will cost you in an interview.

    ;)

  • (cs) in reply to merreborn
    merreborn:
    it was up to Simon to ensure that that the two company’s systems could talk.
    two companies'
    Two's Company.

    np: Tocotronic - Verschwör Dich Gegen Dich (Kapitulation Live)

  • (cs) in reply to Bill Quick
    Bill Quick:
    Within a week, an EBS “integration engineer” was flown out to Simon’s company to “monitor the development of and certify their solution.” (...) He set up a Windows server and modified the invoice exporter to create a file in their fixed-width format and then send it to the Windows server, which would allow the “real” QuikBill to convert the file to EDIFACT and send it to their server.
    If they were running the "real" QuikBill on a "real" Windows machine, then why was there any need to monitor and certify their solution? I mean, they just used QuikBill as it was meant to be used, they didn't run their own replacement for QuikBill any longer, did they?

    Not to mention that Simon should have done exactly done that in the first place... While it may look easy and tempting to roll your own solution, if all you have to do is buy a Windows PC and run the existing solution on it, no development of your own, no matter how easy it looked, is going to be any cheaper than that -- or am I missing something here?

    Doing so would be considered in the land of "cheap hack fix", which is usually a bad practice.

    TRWTF is that EBS didn't do a Unix client for QuikBill; if you're expecting big clients to send EDI stuff, you'd also expect them to be using Unix. Hell, maybe even z/OS!

    Most big businesses use some kind of flat-file format for EDI, so the "client" thing wasn't even necessary, more like EBS pushing down to them the great solution.

  • Aidan (unregistered)

    When a QuikBill client sends a bill over the modem, the server translates the EDIFACT message to a fixed-column formatted file and saved to disk. The file is printed out and the page is placed on a wooden table where it is photographed. The photograph is then uploaded to the accounts server. A printer then picks up the photograph and prints the invoice on a form. From there, an accounts payable clerk takes the form off the printer and types it in to their voucher system to be paid.

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Survey User 2338:
    How do I get the job where I sit in the chair and read magazines for $200 per hour? The fact that I don't have that job is the RWTF...

    If you knew it is "TRWTF" and not "the RWTF" you'd probably have a job. Those kind of mistakes will cost you in an interview.

    ;)

    And is The RW the F, my friend... nobody calls it a BS of D either. Maybe you can get a job moderating submissions to urbandictionary.com.

    Maybe.

  • Wodin (unregistered) in reply to sewiv
    sewiv:
    I hate IDOCs.
    Novell Identity Manager!

    My sympathies.

  • Kentaree (unregistered) in reply to SomeCoder

    The real WTF is that a company that owes another one money dictates when and how much to pay them...

  • (cs) in reply to DazP
    DazP:
    That is PAINFUL.

    Painful in so many places.

    I tend not to tell people how systems are integrated - it pisses them off.

    We recently got a telephone system installed that saved files on "a chip on the phone", I was told repeatedly that "phones aren't like IT", although they requested a windows XP system be set up to serve the phone system.

    We asked them if we could be emailed when a new voice mail came in - we were told no way, "Phones aren't like IT". "Everything is stored on chips inside the phones, the missed calls, the recordings, everything".

    I found that MySQL runs as root on the server they set up. With no password. It has a table for voicemail - it also lists a long URI that links to a file in a folder full of MP3 voicemails.

    Now our server connects to theirs periodically to check for new voice mails and sends an email out to whoever missed it in less than 100 lines of code.

    I'll tell the full story one day. It'd be a relatively ok WTF.

    Hmmm. My mind numbed out at the comment "Phones aren't like IT." What, these loons think that the "chip on the phone" is fully analogue and contains no transistors, just a teeny tiny micro-miniaturised strowger switch for signalling purposes and some sort of weird non-digital fax machine/scanner that prints out voice patterns on a little wooden table? Well, possibly.

    Loved the "no expense spared in preparing ... chicken, shrimp and strip beef," though. Outside the culinary wasteland that is most of America, we call that "going to Tesco's snack counter."

Leave a comment on “Unix? With QuikBill?!”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article