• (cs)

    Ah! Micro-Management software policies, you gotta love them.

    The guy on top is First? RTFA!

  • (cs)

    So this was put in production without ever testing it?

  • Tom (unregistered)

    I am sure each script was tested individually.

  • Balr0g (unregistered)

    I call bullshit on this one.

    1. They really had smb-mounts for the system directories - usr/bin or usr/local/bin/ - Why would any sysadmin do this?
    2. Why and how would the Windows management software then detect the Linux binaries?
    3. As the Windows management software is not root on the Linux machines it should not have permission to delete anything.
  • ZoomST (unregistered) in reply to Balr0g
    Balr0g:
    I call bullshit on this one.
    1. They really had smb-mounts for the system directories - usr/bin or usr/local/bin/ - Why would any sysadmin do this?
    2. Why and how would the Windows management software then detect the Linux binaries?
    3. As the Windows management software is not root on the Linux machines it should not have permission to delete anything.
    Well, if I understood correctly, the automatic managers were controlling the software installed in the laptop, so software in the servers were untouched. Thats why they said the network was OK. The battle were fought in each and every laptop in the company. Probably all windows binaries.

    IDK, I'm not a SysAdmin. This way, it keeps being BS?

  • tag (unregistered) in reply to Balr0g
    Balr0g:
    I call bullshit on this one.
    BS, you make a big mistake. You assume that the systems are being managed in a rational way. In this company obviously managers do technical decisions without knowing what makes sense.
    Balr0g:
    1) They really had smb-mounts for the system directories - usr/bin or usr/local/bin/ - Why would any sysadmin do this?
    Manager 1: "Make sure we separate additionally installed software, don't let it mix with the default installation in the usual unix directories where everything resides! Program files are also not stored under /Windows on Windows, are they?"

    Note that the analogy does not fit, but sounds very nice. This is the way managers often think.

    Balr0g:
    2) Why and how would the Windows management software then detect the Linux binaries?
    Manager 2: "Don't fiddle with individual directories, it is too much work and you will miss something. Just mount the drive."

    Note that a virus scanner for Windows usually is capable of detecting Linux virus and vice versa. Scanning is usually being done on servers for clients of all types. Why should it be another way here if the software is written for different operating systems? Linux software also intended to manage Windows binaries, Windows software also intended to manage Linux binaries.

    Balr0g:
    3) As the Windows management software is not root on the Linux machines it should not have permission to delete anything.
    Manager 3: "Should not write? I don't care. Make it work that I can edit my Excel!"

    These are only examples for bad decisions made on ignorance or missing knowledge. There are many possible decisions leading to such strange situations.

    BTW how do you know that the Windows management software really is not using the root account on Linux? ...

  • (cs) in reply to Balr0g
    Balr0g:
    I call bullshit on this one.
    1. They really had smb-mounts for the system directories - usr/bin or usr/local/bin/ - Why would any sysadmin do this?
    2. Why and how would the Windows management software then detect the Linux binaries?
    3. As the Windows management software is not root on the Linux machines it should not have permission to delete anything.

    I'm thinking the same... Maybe it's been broken by the anonymisation and dramatisation.

    That said, there are people who share the entire root FS to every user to keep things simple. The same "simple" people could easily create a "simple" script that deletes software. You could even write said script in something available on Windows and Linux (Perl, PHP, etc) so you can keep it real "simple".

  • PC? Really? (unregistered)

    Still cannot distinguish between a computer architecture and an OS, really?

  • faoileag (unregistered)
    snoofle:
    Then everyone was told to reboot ...just in time to go home.
    They were lucky! When our development server went down years ago, it took five days until we could log in again!!! But tell that to anybody today, and they would not believe you!
  • Ian (unregistered)

    The article title should have been something about cats and dogs sleeping together.

    Anyway, BS. What competent network admin lets Windows boxen connect?

    Oh, yeah, this was admin by management, not admin by competence. Never mind.

  • muttleee (unregistered)

    It took managers all day to work out that the changes which had just gone live caused the problem?

  • faoileag (unregistered) in reply to muttleee
    muttleee:
    It took managers all day to work out that the changes which had just gone live caused the problem?
    Erm, no. Cheryl found out, after she met that guy in a bar.

    The managers remained clueless until Cheryl presented her findings.

  • some pony (unregistered) in reply to muttleee

    that cannot be the problem, it has been tested so there are no faults

  • Tester (unregistered)

    Test? Nobody ever tests network changes. They don't have a test network to try them on.

    I work at a place with 5,000 employees and 500,000 customer login accounts. I watched our network admin edit the border firewall rules from his laptop. All real time clicky-clicky bullshit. No testing possible.

    And we wonder why we can't get a bloody three nines uptime. Almost all our outages are human-caused, and we know how to prevent them, but we don't do it. That's why I advocate taking a hammer to the toe of whoever causes a preventable outage. I mean, ten strikes... that's more than criminals get.

  • Anonymous Paranoiac (unregistered)
    Cheryl had lugged her laptop through the frigid weather to get to work early. She put it in the dock, hit the power button, and began to sip her coffee while the machine booted. After a couple of sips, the machine appeared to freeze up. After cursing under her breath, she rebooted and waited again. After several more sips, the laptop appeared to freeze up at the same point.

    Ah, I think there was a paragraph missing after that one:

    This was another blow in a series of unfortunate circumstances for Cheryl, the daughter of a university president. First she was sick, then that moron Andrew couldn't even manage to get his simple DNA sequencing done on time, now she's finally feeling well enough to return to work and this happens.
  • Smug Unix User (unregistered)

    Not allowing developers to use the best tools available and immediately showing the level of distrust the corporation has form them alienates developers and breeds contempt among them. The real WTF is treating IT like normal "users".

  • (cs)

    TRWTF is that this article portrays PC and Linux as something mutually exclusive. PC doesn't just mean Windows, it means a computer using the PC architecture. Which includes most Linux computers.

  • faoileag (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Paranoiac
    Anonymous Paranoiac:
    Ah, I think there was a paragraph missing after that one:
    This was another blow in a series of unfortunate circumstances for Cheryl, the daughter of a university president. First she was sick, then that moron Andrew couldn't even manage to get his simple DNA sequencing done on time, now she's finally feeling well enough to return to work and this happens.

    Now I get it! I was a little bit confused:

    Once it was diagnosed, verified and pushed up the hierarchy, a directive was immediately spewed forth to stop the managed maintenance software
    I mean - who would listen to a Cheryl?

    But if you read it like:

    Once it was diagnosed, verified and she had told her dad, the President immadiately fired the managers responsible for the snafu and issued a directive to stop the managed maintenance software until more competent personel had been found

    it suddenly makes sense!

  • Boomer (unregistered) in reply to Balr0g

    I agree with you on this. Apart from the question of mounting your bin directories, the executables are not going to have the same names or signatures--is the Windows software looking for ELFs?

    Captcha: veniam--let me go!

  • $$ERR:get_name_fail (unregistered) in reply to Boomer
    Boomer:
    the executables are not going to have the same names or signatures--is the Windows software looking for ELFs?
    They could have the same signature when they are Java applications. One Java application allowed on one OS and forbidden on the other would be enough to start that loop.
  • heh (unregistered) in reply to PC? Really?

    Yah i have this PC at home that runs Linux.

    maybe it's to avoid brand names. but hten it's not that since other brands are used.

  • Spudley (unregistered) in reply to Boomer
    Boomer:
    is the Windows software looking for ELFs?

    Yep, and finding Gremlins.

    ...caused by a fight between the Linux support Wizards and the management Ogres.

    Now, it's up to our hero, Cheryl the Rogue, to save the day. (albeit she only manages to save the last few minutes of it)

    (oh, and please don't call me a Troll for posting this..)

  • Aaron (unregistered)

    "The problem was that in the PC world, you were supposed to use IE, TOAD and MS Office, and in the Linux world, you were supposed to use Firefox, SQL Developer and Open Office."

    I call shenanigans on this.

    Long ago, when I still used Windows, I used Firefox (and Netscape before that) because Internet Explore sucked balls. In fact, IIRC, Firefox was released for Windows long before it was released for Linux. I also tend to use Chrome on Linux when I'm not doing development (typing this in a Chrome window right now).

    Instead of saying "In the PC World", how about you say "in a Microsoft shop" -- Linux runs on PCs, just like Windows does.

  • ccj (unregistered)

    ...and nobody tried booting off-network?

    TRWTF #1 is the employees not immediately disconnecting peripherals, such as an ethernet cable, to diagnose the boot problem. Faulty I/O drivers and/or badly configured IRQs cause this $h!t all the time

    TRWTF #2 is non-.net developers running win32 (backslash file path delimiters? White space in default installation directory names? WTF?!)

  • Lord V.... (unregistered)

    A.k.a ACS (Australian Chess Syndrome):

    #1: Check, mate! #2: Aye, that's not checkmate, that's check, mate!

    (Repeat ad nauseam)

  • $$ERR:get_name_fail (unregistered) in reply to Aaron
    Aaron:
    I call shenanigans on this.

    Long ago, when I still used Windows, I used Firefox (and Netscape before that) because Internet Explore sucked balls. In fact, IIRC, Firefox was released for Windows long before it was released for Linux. I also tend to use Chrome on Linux when I'm not doing development (typing this in a Chrome window right now).

    In the company I work for we are using IE instead of Firefox on our windows machines mostly because IE can be administrated remotely through Windows group policies. Preventing the user from changing Firefox settings remotely is not that easy (at least according to our IT department).

  • (cs)

    "At Cheryl C's company, most of the work was done,"

    Well then, sounds like an easy job!

  • (cs) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    TRWTF is that this article portrays PC and Linux as something mutually exclusive. PC doesn't just mean Windows, it means a computer using the PC architecture. Which includes most Linux computers.
    So your saying that Android Smartphones are PCs?
  • wombat willy (unregistered)

    Not sure of the veracity of this story but it's sure as hell FUNNY!

  • Uhh (unregistered) in reply to Aaron
    Aaron:
    "The problem was that in the PC world, you were supposed to use IE, TOAD and MS Office, and in the Linux world, you were supposed to use Firefox, SQL Developer and Open Office."

    I call shenanigans on this.

    Long ago, when I still used Windows, I used Firefox (and Netscape before that) because Internet Explore sucked balls. In fact, IIRC, Firefox was released for Windows long before it was released for Linux. I also tend to use Chrome on Linux when I'm not doing development (typing this in a Chrome window right now).

    Instead of saying "In the PC World", how about you say "in a Microsoft shop" -- Linux runs on PCs, just like Windows does.

    Hey, you might be missing the point. Noone is saying that IE is what everyone wants or should use in "the PC world" - but, as the article clearly says, in their company the "PC half" were required to use IE no matter what and any other browsers were automatically forcibly deleted.

  • (cs) in reply to Tester
    Tester:
    Test? Nobody ever tests network changes. They don't have a test network to try them on.

    I work at a place with 5,000 employees and 500,000 customer login accounts. I watched our network admin edit the border firewall rules from his laptop. All real time clicky-clicky bullshit. No testing possible.

    ...

    "rel in 5" is your friend here. Followed by the clicky-clicky. If you can still talk to the firewall after the clicky-clicky, then "rel can" followed by "wri mem". Otherwise, tell the helpdesk to stall for a few minutes.

  • Sherrie (unregistered) in reply to Ian

    I've seen cats and dogs sleep together. Competent management? Maybe an oxymoron--or just moron? Sometimes.

    In general info silos don't work IMHO.

  • truth (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    TRWTF is that this article portrays PC and Linux as something mutually exclusive. PC doesn't just mean Windows, it means a computer using the PC architecture. Which includes most Linux computers.
    False.
  • Drake (unregistered) in reply to Boomer
    Boomer:
    I agree with you on this. Apart from the question of mounting your bin directories, the executables are not going to have the same names or signatures--is the Windows software looking for ELFs?

    Captcha: veniam--let me go!

    I would bet money that some manager somewhere decided to look by filenames or strings found in the binaries instead of checking the actual binary - "Just remove all files that say Mozilla or Firefox either in the file name or in the file"; Thinking they would catch any sneaky types who just change install directories and executable names.

  • Ru (unregistered)

    A Jurassic Mammoth, eh? No kidding? I guess that explains where they all went; into a time portal.

  • Valued Service (unregistered)

    Anyone else see War of the Worlds and then keep reading her name as Chernobyl?

  • (cs) in reply to Spudley
    Spudley:
    Boomer:
    is the Windows software looking for ELFs?

    Yep, and finding Gremlins.

    ...caused by a fight between the Linux support Wizards and the management Ogres.

    Now, it's up to our hero, Cheryl the Rogue, to save the day. (albeit she only manages to save the last few minutes of it)

    (oh, and please don't call me a Troll for posting this..)

    +1. Someone feature this comment, please.

  • foxyshadis (unregistered) in reply to Aaron
    Aaron:
    "The problem was that in the PC world, you were supposed to use IE, TOAD and MS Office, and in the Linux world, you were supposed to use Firefox, SQL Developer and Open Office."

    I call shenanigans on this.

    Long ago, when I still used Windows, I used Firefox (and Netscape before that) because Internet Explore sucked balls. In fact, IIRC, Firefox was released for Windows long before it was released for Linux. I also tend to use Chrome on Linux when I'm not doing development (typing this in a Chrome window right now).

    Instead of saying "In the PC World", how about you say "in a Microsoft shop" -- Linux runs on PCs, just like Windows does.

    TDWTF comments are mostly composed of autistic assholes who can't understand context to save their life, apparently.

    "The PC World" in this case is obviously just an internal label that refers to the Microsoft half of this particular company, whether the label is perfectly semantically correct or not. Most readers got that immediately. Sorry that flew over your head.

  • VtCodger (unregistered) in reply to Smug Unix User

    The real WTF is treating IT like normal "users"

    Might I suggest that the real WTF is treating users, normal or special, with contempt? Nobody seems to remember, but IT is a service organization whose purpose is to help people do their jobs, not an on-going ego-trip whose purpose is to "service" their clients

  • foxyshadis (unregistered) in reply to $$ERR:get_name_fail
    $$ERR:get_name_fail:
    Aaron:
    I call shenanigans on this.

    Long ago, when I still used Windows, I used Firefox (and Netscape before that) because Internet Explore sucked balls. In fact, IIRC, Firefox was released for Windows long before it was released for Linux. I also tend to use Chrome on Linux when I'm not doing development (typing this in a Chrome window right now).

    In the company I work for we are using IE instead of Firefox on our windows machines mostly because IE can be administrated remotely through Windows group policies. Preventing the user from changing Firefox settings remotely is not that easy (at least according to our IT department).

    It's true, it's a pain in the ass and somewhat fragile, and most importantly doesn't integrate into group policy at all. You have to make policy files rather than registry entries, and occasionally the FF people change around about:config entries, although that's a lot more rare now.

    There are abandoned community extensions that could be installed onto the base install that allow GPO updating, but then admins have to create their own admx files, since the only ones that exist in the wild are pretty bare-bones. Even pre-configuring the proxy and turning updates off is a pain in the ass to manage. The Mozilla Foundation just doesn't give a damn.

  • Zunesis... Like Never Before! (unregistered) in reply to lucidfox
    lucidfox:
    TRWTF is that this article portrays PC and Linux as something mutually exclusive. PC doesn't just mean Windows, it means a computer using the PC architecture. Which includes most Linux computers.
    Aw, look at that - a girl trying to use a computer - how, cute! When we want your mouth open, you'll know it, OK, sweetie?
  • foxyshadis (unregistered) in reply to VtCodger
    VtCodger:
    > The real WTF is treating IT like normal "users"

    Might I suggest that the real WTF is treating users, normal or special, with contempt? Nobody seems to remember, but IT is a service organization whose purpose is to help people do their jobs, not an on-going ego-trip whose purpose is to "service" their clients

    Depends on where you work. There are some managers that seem to hire dumb as bricks people who'll never be capable of challenging them (or just for looking good). There are some who assemble a strike team of the most competent people around. And most are in-between, who'd rather know their job than know the technology but might work better with different software.

    Competent administration is approving people on a case-by-case basis, with the understanding that if it doesn't work in their pet program and no one else knows it, they're going to have to go back to the company's. And that some sites use ActiveX and will have to be done in IE. (Alternately, you can allow anyone, and only lock down & blacklist anyone who has a fit over their software, but that becomes a nightmare to support.) Anything else is just laziness or bad management.

  • (cs) in reply to muttleee
    muttleee:
    It took managers all day to work out that the changes which had just gone live caused the problem?

    Well, you know, ... this Dilbert strip.

    See, you're assuming logical sequence...which frequently is absent from management. And, by extension, network managment and deployment managment. (There's a reason why the word "management" appears in both of those terms, you know.)

  • Ralph (unregistered) in reply to foxyshadis
    foxyshadis:
    It's true, it's a pain in the ass and somewhat fragile, and most importantly doesn't integrate into group policy at all. You have to make policy _files_ rather than registry entries
    Sorry, that's not a bug, that's a feature, and a damn good one too. There are soooooo many nice things you can do with files: individually copy them, back them up, restore them, put them in version control, compare them (in version control or not) with previous to see what changed when, set permissions on them, print them, paste them into instruction documents, link to them from how to articles, check date last modified........... and all with the same standard familiar utilities you use to work with all your other files.

    By comparison (although you can do a few of those things, in a clunky way, with a whole different tool set) registry entries suck manure-coated fly-swarming donkey balls while bragging about how tasty they are.

    foxyshadis:
    occasionally the FF people change around about:config entries, although that's a lot more rare now.
    The inability of the FF people to stabilize their configuration options is not a reflection on where they store them. You think if they used registry entries that would stop them from FFing around with things every so often?
  • stew (unregistered)

    So the problem was apparently diagnosed by a non-IT-support person. ... after talking to a clueless support person. ... who was in a bar during the middle of the work day. ... while his department was in the midst of a network outage that had brought all work to a halt.

    I think I found the WTF.

  • (cs) in reply to foxyshadis
    foxyshadis:
    It's true, it's a pain in the ass and somewhat fragile, and most importantly doesn't integrate into group policy at all. You have to make policy _files_ rather than registry entries, and occasionally the FF people change around about:config entries, although that's a lot more rare now.

    There are abandoned community extensions that could be installed onto the base install that allow GPO updating, but then admins have to create their own admx files, since the only ones that exist in the wild are pretty bare-bones. Even pre-configuring the proxy and turning updates off is a pain in the ass to manage. The Mozilla Foundation just doesn't give a damn.

    This. I'd love to deploy Firefox on all of our Windows machines (yes, they're all PCs as well) but it's a huge pain to manage. So, users who hate IE end up installing Chrome, which automagically installs into the user's profile if they're not an admin.

    If there are any Mozilla devs that read TDWTF, please stop hating on the enterprise. You're just pushing potential Firefox users to Chrome.

  • Jazz (unregistered) in reply to Spenzer4Hire
    Spenzer4Hire:
    I'd love to deploy Firefox on all of our Windows machines (yes, they're all PCs as well) but it's a huge pain to manage. So, users who hate IE end up installing Chrome, which automagically installs into the user's profile if they're not an admin. If there are any Mozilla devs that read TDWTF, please stop hating on the enterprise. You're just pushing potential Firefox users to Chrome.

    What I'm hearing you say is "All of my clients who dislike IE prefer Chrome. Therefore, I'd really like to give them Firefox."

    On the downside, that's the worst possible mindless-support-drone type solution to the problem. Listen to what your users are telling you, for chrissakes. They don't WANT Firefox any more than they want IE. Don't shove a solution down your users' throats.

    On the upside, with that sort of approach, you have a promising career in management ahead of you.

  • Jazz (unregistered) in reply to tag
    tag:
    In this company obviously managers do technical decisions without knowing what makes sense.

    In what company is this not the case? Isn't that the entire purpose of having managers?

  • Some Damn Yank (unregistered) in reply to Valued Service
    Valued Service:
    Anyone else see War of the Worlds and then keep reading her name as Chernobyl?
    No, just you.
  • instigator (unregistered) in reply to Balr0g
    Balr0g:
    I call bullshit on this one.
    1. They really had smb-mounts for the system directories - usr/bin or usr/local/bin/ - Why would any sysadmin do this?
    2. Why and how would the Windows management software then detect the Linux binaries?
    3. As the Windows management software is not root on the Linux machines it should not have permission to delete anything.
    If users don't have root access they might install binaries in ~/bin.

Leave a comment on “War of the Worlds”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article