• foo (unregistered)

    Fir cough choke sputter

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to foo
    foo:
    Fir *cough* *choke* *sputter*
    + forty mil *cough* etc.

    I spot a meme ...

  • (cs)

    Question for snoofle: What's the regulatory time-frame for implementing these reports? And more specifically is it within the couple of years you suggest it will take for WTF-Inc to get its (bad word) in order?

    Given that the alternative provider isn't in a state to pick up the slack in the short term (how long do you reckon they'll need?), the regulations might be a bit premature... (Not that that's ever been known to stop regulators, mind...)

  • specific demo comment (unregistered)

    Per the SLA, in timely compliance with regulatory edict, this comment is frist.

  • Fritz, a.k.a. Fritzo (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    foo:
    Fir *cough* *choke* *sputter*
    + forty mil *cough* etc.

    I spot a meme ...

    Really now? You should write for TDWTF.

  • (cs)

    It's always funny to watch a shithole company flounder, but even better when you can see it happening and (hopefully) educate others that the company is awful. I've seen far too many crappy companies stay afloat because nobody spreads the word that they're terrible and need to be avoided.

  • Pista (unregistered)

    I don't quite see the WTF here... On the contrary, snoofle just saved BigCo a lot of trouble. Maybe the WTF is that BigCo actually listened to him? :-) Of course, I can understand the "joy" of seeing WTFInc's WTFs bear the fruits he knew they'll bear.

    Captcha: eros. Nah, I don't like Ramazotti.

  • talky bedbug (unregistered) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    It's always funny to watch a shithole company flounder, but even better when you can see it happening and (hopefully) educate others that the company is awful. I've seen far too many crappy companies stay afloat because nobody spreads the word that they're terrible and need to be avoided.
    [image]
  • barabas (unregistered)

    gullible ˈgʌlɪb(ə)l adjective 1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.

  • Andrew (unregistered)

    A snoofle post! At last!

  • (cs) in reply to Andrew
    Andrew:
    A snoofle post! At last!

    It's definitely a breath of fresh air after the Hanzo debacle.

  • belzebub (unregistered)

    Why was snoofle "a bit hesitant to offer many details"? Was it because some NDA or similar legal stuff?

  • EvilSnack (unregistered) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    It's always funny to watch a shithole company flounder, but even better when you can see it happening and (hopefully) educate others that the company is awful. I've seen far too many crappy companies stay afloat because nobody spreads the word that they're terrible and need to be avoided.
    Although there are quite a few companies that have quite a few people going around decrying their awfulness, and they still manage to stay afloat.

    It pays to have friends in Washington.

  • (cs) in reply to Steve The Cynic

    @steve the cynic: wtf-inc could get it's house in order, if it wanted to, but I doubt they'll pay their technical debts in time. The competition could catch up int time if they pushed it

  • (cs) in reply to belzebub
    belzebub:
    Why was snoofle "a bit hesitant to offer many details"? Was it because some NDA or similar legal stuff?
    fear of liability, so I just told them what questions to ask, and make sure everything worked as advertized
  • dark yuris (unregistered)

    snoofle? skip...

  • Eclipser (unregistered)
    (my spies back at WTF-Inc know where I'm working; they called, and hysterically informed me that all of my code that had been reverted back to the way I wrote it)

    So, wait a sec. Does this mean that WTF-Inc removed all of snoofle's performance enhancements after he left, only to put them back in after BigCo's stress tests failed? Or does it mean that the junior devs they used to replace snoofle just mucked up the code after he left?

    I re-read http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Last-Straw.aspx and it sounds like both could be true...

  • Smug Unix User (unregistered)

    Shouldn't due diligence be standard?

  • (cs) in reply to Smug Unix User
    Smug Unix User:
    Shouldn't due diligence be standard?
    Well, yes, by definition. The "due" means "required" or "necessary".

    But lots of people don't do it, and suffer for it. Including, apparently, most of WTF-Inc's customer base.

  • IrritableGourmet (unregistered)

    I moved from a shoddily-run company to a much larger one. Unfortunately, there was a client in common that demanded I do work on the project my old company was handling because they were, as usual, far behind on it. It was a great deal of fun to be in the conference calls where they promised all the remaining developers were working non-stop on it while talking to said developers on AIM about how a few minutes ago the boss pulled them off to work on something else because "[IrritableGourmet] is doing all the work and I don't have to pay him, so work on other things."

  • Anonymous Paranoiac (unregistered) in reply to Smug Unix User
    Smug Unix User:
    Shouldn't due diligence be standard?

    "Due diligence" tends to work out much the same as "common sense".

  • Dude diligence (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Paranoiac
    Anonymous Paranoiac:
    Smug Unix User:
    Shouldn't due diligence be standard?

    "Due diligence" tends to work out much the same as "common sense".

    I thought it was common sense with a verifiable paper trail.

  • Dave (unregistered) in reply to Eclipser
    Eclipser:
    (my spies back at WTF-Inc know where I'm working; they called, and hysterically informed me that all of my code that had been reverted back to the way I wrote it)

    So, wait a sec. Does this mean that WTF-Inc removed all of snoofle's performance enhancements after he left, only to put them back in after BigCo's stress tests failed? Or does it mean that the junior devs they used to replace snoofle just mucked up the code after he left?

    I re-read http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Last-Straw.aspx and it sounds like both could be true...

    Yeah I also didn't understand that statement...it is either missing words or has extra words.

  • (cs) in reply to Dave
    Dave:
    Eclipser:
    (my spies back at WTF-Inc know where I'm working; they called, and hysterically informed me that all of my code that had been reverted back to the way I wrote it)

    So, wait a sec. Does this mean that WTF-Inc removed all of snoofle's performance enhancements after he left, only to put them back in after BigCo's stress tests failed? Or does it mean that the junior devs they used to replace snoofle just mucked up the code after he left?

    I re-read http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Last-Straw.aspx and it sounds like both could be true...

    Yeah I also didn't understand that statement...it is either missing words or has extra words.

    I'm pretty sure when I first read it that this bit of the article said that it had been unreverted back the way snoofle wrote it, i.e. somebody (Manoj P.?) undid what snoofle did, then in response to BigCo's tests, they un-undid what snoofle did, that is, they redid what snoofle did.

    Pretty lame either way.

  • Valued Service (unregistered) in reply to Eclipser
    Eclipser:
    (my spies back at WTF-Inc know where I'm working; they called, and hysterically informed me that all of my code that had been changed reverted back to the way I wrote it)

    So, wait a sec. Does this mean that WTF-Inc removed all of snoofle's performance enhancements after he left, only to put them back in after BigCo's stress tests failed? Or does it mean that the junior devs they used to replace snoofle just mucked up the code after he left?

    I re-read http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Last-Straw.aspx and it sounds like both could be true...

    FTFY

  • gnasher729 (unregistered) in reply to belzebub
    belzebub:
    Why was snoofle "a bit hesitant to offer many details"? Was it because some NDA or similar legal stuff?

    If you moved from company A to company B, and then spill the beans on company A, then company B has to assume that you will spill the beans on them when you eventually move on to company C.

    At the very least you should appear to be hesitant.

  • luctus (unregistered) in reply to gnasher729
    gnasher729:
    If you moved from company A to company B, and then spill the beans on company A, then company B has to assume that you will spill the beans on them when you eventually move on to company C.
    That's company B's fault for having beans to spill in the first place.
  • (cs) in reply to barabas
    barabas:
    gullible ˈgʌlɪb(ə)l adjective 1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.

    Ha! They got you: that's not what the word means at all!

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Dave
    Dave:
    Eclipser:
    (my spies back at WTF-Inc know where I'm working; they called, and hysterically informed me that all of my code that had been reverted back to the way I wrote it)

    So, wait a sec. Does this mean that WTF-Inc removed all of snoofle's performance enhancements after he left, only to put them back in after BigCo's stress tests failed? Or does it mean that the junior devs they used to replace snoofle just mucked up the code after he left?

    I re-read http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Last-Straw.aspx and it sounds like both could be true...

    Yeah I also didn't understand that statement...it is either missing words or has extra words.

    The way I interpreted it, in the first article he said that New Leadership said you-shall-do-thusly and he informed them that it'd never work. He left, they did it anyway, it didn't work, and then they had to revert it all back to get it to a semi-working state again.

  • (cs) in reply to anonymous
    anonymous:
    Dave:
    Eclipser:
    (my spies back at WTF-Inc know where I'm working; they called, and hysterically informed me that all of my code that had been reverted back to the way I wrote it)

    So, wait a sec. Does this mean that WTF-Inc removed all of snoofle's performance enhancements after he left, only to put them back in after BigCo's stress tests failed? Or does it mean that the junior devs they used to replace snoofle just mucked up the code after he left?

    I re-read http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Last-Straw.aspx and it sounds like both could be true...

    Yeah I also didn't understand that statement...it is either missing words or has extra words.

    The way I interpreted it, in the first article he said that New Leadership said you-shall-do-thusly and he informed them that it'd never work. He left, they did it anyway, it didn't work, and then they had to revert it all back to get it to a semi-working state again.
    Exactly!

  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered)

    Bows and flows of Java code And ivory towers in the air And clueless DBAs everywhere I've looked at fail that way

    I've seen the fail from both sides now From in and out and still somehow It's management's illusions I recall They really don't know jack shit at all

  • Eclipser (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    anonymous:
    Dave:
    Eclipser:
    (my spies back at WTF-Inc know where I'm working; they called, and hysterically informed me that all of my code that had been reverted back to the way I wrote it)

    So, wait a sec. Does this mean that WTF-Inc removed all of snoofle's performance enhancements after he left, only to put them back in after BigCo's stress tests failed? Or does it mean that the junior devs they used to replace snoofle just mucked up the code after he left?

    I re-read http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Last-Straw.aspx and it sounds like both could be true...

    Yeah I also didn't understand that statement...it is either missing words or has extra words.

    The way I interpreted it, in the first article he said that New Leadership said you-shall-do-thusly and he informed them that it'd never work. He left, they did it anyway, it didn't work, and then they had to revert it all back to get it to a semi-working state again.
    Exactly!

    Now that has to have been a very satisfying "I told you so!"

    Any word about fallout back at WTF-Inc over this? I guess that would only really happen if MegaCorp got wind of this.

  • (cs) in reply to luctus
    luctus:
    gnasher729:
    If you moved from company A to company B, and then spill the beans on company A, then company B has to assume that you will spill the beans on them when you eventually move on to company C.
    That's company B's fault for having beans to spill in the first place.
    Everywhere has beans to spill, but some beans make a much bigger mess than others. If the dominating story of a company is that they work hard to do the best they can, even if not always successfully, then they're not that bad a place to deal with. If the dominating story is of management actively hindering their employees (who have responded by switching to just going through the motions) then that's a place that it is best to run a country mile from.

    Or maybe a few dozen country miles. (I've no idea how long a country mile is, but given some companies I've had dealings with in the past, “far, but not far enough” would be the headline summary.)

  • fan (unregistered) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL

    +1

  • Anonypony (unregistered)

    Is this yet another article written by snoofle in which snoofle is the smart hero and saves the day? Yawn. And double yawn for such a boring anemic story at that.

    When did it become the norm rather than the exception for articles on this site to be long-winded stories with no detail, no point, and no RWTF? A WTF lives and exists only in the details -- and sorry, but "the JVM ran out of memory omg lolol!" is not a WTF.

    Also, when you anonymize names to things like "WTF-Inc" and "BigCo", it makes the story harder to follow.

  • Anomaly (unregistered) in reply to Anonypony
    Anonypony:
    Is this yet another article written by snoofle in which snoofle is the smart hero and saves the day? Yawn. And double yawn for such a boring anemic story at that.

    When did it become the norm rather than the exception for articles on this site to be long-winded stories with no detail, no point, and no RWTF? A WTF lives and exists only in the details -- and sorry, but "the JVM ran out of memory omg lolol!" is not a WTF.

    Also, when you anonymize names to things like "WTF-Inc" and "BigCo", it makes the story harder to follow.

    It makes it funnier if you think of WTF-Inc as a company owned by thedailywtf. With all the recent TDWTFs being so terrible (Hanzo i'm looking at yours) it makes a lot more sense. They aren't being anonymized. The site is just finally being honest about its own staff.

    TRWTF today being TDWTF thinking an "I told you so." story is worthy of being a featured article. We get it snoofle you like showing off. Next time show off with something with a little more wow factor. Show off and impress. Don't show off and bore to death.

    Captcha: Plaga - The recent series about Hanzo has been a plaga on the site.

  • Reductio Ad Ridiculousum (unregistered) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    Bows and flows of Java code And ivory towers in the air And clueless DBAs everywhere I've looked at fail that way

    I've seen the fail from both sides now From in and out and still somehow It's management's illusions I recall They really don't know jack shit at all

    +1. I think this one deserves the Blue Tint of Approbation.

  • Mr.Bob (unregistered)

    Let's not be coy... this is about Healthcare.gov, right?

  • I'm not cynical, George (unregistered) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    It's always funny to watch a shithole company flounder, but even better when you can see it happening and (hopefully) educate others that the company is awful. I've seen far too many crappy companies stay afloat because nobody spreads the word that they're terrible and need to be avoided.
    Part of the reason noone spreads the word is because often terrible is the norm - so when people deal with craptacular companies, they assume their expectations are simply too high, because the incompetent people they're dealing with were often picked out as the best from a host of options - so people assume (often wrongly) that the other options must be even worse (of course, they always forget that the choice is usually made based on who is the cheapest, by someone who doesn't understand the marketing pitch or even what they're trying to choose)
  • Valued Service (unregistered) in reply to Anonypony
    Anonypony:
    Is this yet another article written by snoofle in which snoofle is the smart hero and saves the day? Yawn. And double yawn for such a boring anemic story at that.

    When did it become the norm rather than the exception for articles on this site to be long-winded stories with no detail, no point, and no RWTF? A WTF lives and exists only in the details -- and sorry, but "the JVM ran out of memory omg lolol!" is not a WTF.

    Also, when you anonymize names to things like "WTF-Inc" and "BigCo", it makes the story harder to follow.

    So, to get it right.

    You want detail, but not too long. You want a point, but the point should be not boring. You don't want JVM ran out of memory. So it has to be complicated, but not too long, full of details, but not boring.

    Hey, how about you submit one!!!

  • Valued Service (unregistered) in reply to Mr.Bob
    Mr.Bob:
    Let's not be coy... this is about Healthcare.gov, right?

    I don't have to argue the premise. I just have to point out how hard the gov fails all the time.

    It doesn't mean something shouldn't be done, just that the gov will fail to do it.

    When you have a stack of papers telling you what to do that no one has read, no one knows what it is, and no one can understand it, how can you expect a development team to achieve the correct requirements and produce a sound and valid set of logic to develop from.

  • ANON (unregistered) in reply to Anonypony
    Anonypony:
    Is this yet another article written by snoofle in which snoofle is the smart hero and saves the day? Yawn. And double yawn for such a boring anemic story at that.

    When did it become the norm rather than the exception for articles on this site to be long-winded stories with no detail, no point, and no RWTF? A WTF lives and exists only in the details -- and sorry, but "the JVM ran out of memory omg lolol!" is not a WTF.

    Also, when you anonymize names to things like "WTF-Inc" and "BigCo", it makes the story harder to follow.

    I don't agree on this. I think for the detail-grade the categories exist:

    • Feature articles for management WTFs
    • CodeSOD for programming WTFs
    • Error'd for WTF's from the user's POV

    If you want stories with more detail you should read CodeSOD.

    And I also don't understand how the anonymization confuses you. Should he call the companies "A" and "B" instead? I think this would make the stories harder and less funnier to read.

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to I'm not cynical, George
    I'm not cynical:
    often terrible is the norm
    Yes, but when it happens I try to fix it.

    (Admitting to WTFs and trying to fix them is how I get enemies in Washington. In both Washingtons.)

  • Pumkinpatch (unregistered)

    ITT: Comments by people with no real WTFs of their own or an inability to post them (not mutually exclusive) complaining self-righteously about the lack of quality WTFs.

    captcha: venio - these ditships need a glass of venio and settle the cruck down.

  • Alex (unregistered)

    Isn't the only time you're ethically allowed to do the I-told-you-so routine is when you're completely not involved in the failure you warned about?

    Don't get me wrong - I think snoofle knows his stuff, but this just rubs me the wrong way.

    captcha: populus - Finally a nice story the populus would enjoy.

  • (cs) in reply to Alex
    Alex:
    Isn't the only time you're ethically allowed to do the I-told-you-so routine is when you're completely not involved in the failure you warned about?
    Um, no.

    Imagine this situation:

    Boss: No, do it this way. Dev: Um, boss, if I do it that way it will break like this. Boss: Do it anyway. Dev: ...

    ...

    Crunch. It breaks like this.

    At this point, the dev is morally entitled to say "I told you so." I realise that "morally entitled" is not the thing as "ethically allowed", but more importantly, I also know that in such a situation it's probably a really bad career move to do so.

    Only do this to your peers.

  • pouzzler (unregistered)

    This site has gone from a repository of charming bugs that made coders remember their early code with a slight tinge of nostalgia, or else roll their eyes until they were about to burst out of their heads, to a venting ground for employees resenting their (ex)management, and this article is another one of that sort.

    Today's story is, sadly, the latter, and holds absolutely nothing to capture the programmer audience's interest. Some company has some software that can't handle some load. What a story!

    Beauty is in the details. Therefore, if you really need to vent, try to at least provide us with some interesting tidbits other than all these vague or not-for-you-civilian-audience descriptions and comments.

    The captcha made me feel like a (facilisis)t for falling on you, but it was a purely vacuous story, and had to be done, for your own good.

  • (cs) in reply to dkf
    dkf:
    luctus:
    gnasher729:
    If you moved from company A to company B, and then spill the beans on company A, then company B has to assume that you will spill the beans on them when you eventually move on to company C.
    That's company B's fault for having beans to spill in the first place.
    Everywhere has beans to spill, but some beans make a much bigger mess than others. ...
    (*parp*) Phee-oo-wee, sorry. Yeah, gotcha ...
  • Alex (unregistered) in reply to Steve The Cynic
    Alex:
    ...completely not involved in the failure...
    Steve The Cynic:
    ... Um, no. ...

    Doing what your boss says ≠ Being involved in the failure.

    The little exchange you brought could have been like this:

    Dev: Lets do it this way. Boss: Do it that way. Dev: But that's not going to cover everything. Boss: Right, but thats faster and we got bigger problems. Do it the fast way and fix those other problems. Dev: Does it this way. Dev: Quits, goes to work for client, tells the client what to do so the system would break.

    Not everything is black and white, and I'm sure snoofle wouldn't have written all these WTFs if the WTF-inc management was more like what I've just written, but all the comments like "Good to see people that didn't want to do what I suggested burn" assume this and I just want to say that we don't know this.

    tego, you're it.

  • MrOli (unregistered) in reply to belzebub

    I'd guess at a mixture of professionalism (not wanting to slate his previous employer) and not wanting his current employer to know he'd worked on the app they were buying (in case he couldn't convince them that all his GOOD code had been replaced by someone else's BAD)

Leave a comment on “WTF Inc Epilogue - From the Other Side”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article