Slashdot Mirror
IT Myths
linuxwrangler writes "A special report in this week's InfoWorld tackles the six big myths in IT.
Among the findings: server upgrades
don't matter, 80 percent of corporate data is
not on mainframes, C[IT]Os really
do need technological savvy, most IT projects may be late or over budget but they
don't fail, IT
does scale and nearly all big shops
do run multiple platforms."
... they are usually pusing something on behalf of their advertisers.
At least in some cases.
I would never buy a server based on the ease with which I could replace a processor, but for my file servers -- both dedicated NAS boxes and Windows server machines -- upgrading things like storage space is critical. Being able to expand RAID arrays, replace disks (with larger models) individually or a few at a time, etc etc...
In storage, anyway, unless you are running an extremely predictible environment, upgradeability is one of the first things I look at.
--------------------- -me, Crusher of those who are Foolish (don't be foolish)
What about "outsourcing doesn't work", at least when it comes to software development projects.
I've been a developer for close to 10 years now, am an expert in my field (not afraid to admit it), and of course, always have more to learn. I have never, in those 10 years, been involved in a project that was clearly specified enough, such that one could turn that project over to a team situated halfway around the world, and without much interaction on the part of management, expect a final product that even closely resembles the expectations of said managers.
Anybody out there ever been involved in a successful software project, much less outsourced one, where everybody was happy at the end of the day? By happy I mean the project was done, delivered, closed up, move on to the next big thing.
These don't sound like myths so much as they sound like uneducated things that ignorant, non IT people say.
most IT projects may be late or over budget but they don't fail
Yes, in my experience most projects don't "fail" in the sense that they have to be abandoned, but they do "grind to a halt" once the first round of requirements are met.
I.e. you build a new invoicing system. It meets the requirements. Your team codes like mad to meet those requirements. Success, everybody has a few beers.
Then 6 months the customer needs modifications. You look at your spaghetti code and realize you have to start over. The customer grudgingly accepts.
I would consider that first project a failure even though it met the first requirements.
(Yes here is where you can make a plug for XP or agile development, but it doesn't work for every shop).
The article is right. The only thing we've ever upgraded on our servers is the RAM, and that's usually a stop-gap until we replace the thing. We only have one server that needs to have ample expansion room (a telephony server using custom ISA cards), and it's been with us for YEARS without hitting the cieling.
I think the only people that concern themselves with upgrading all the time are the "power users" that want the latest toys.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
Years ago, Creative Computing magazine published an article entitled "Don't Write That Program If" with a set of either obvious or otherwise lame or irrelevant reasons not to write a computer program (things like, if it already exists, if it's easier to do some other way, etc., I don't remember exactly, they were just too lame). It was clear to me at the time, that they were really reaching for things to fill the few pages that weren't ads.
I responded with an letter to the editor entitled "Don't Write That Article If" which applied similar criteria to magazine articles, all of which applied to the original article (needless to say, the editor didn't print it). About three months later, they went belly-up. A shame, as at one time they were a great magazine.
And, it's certainly true there is a glut of IT mags right now, I get at least 4 and they often have content so similar it looks like the same staff is coming up with all of them. And the number of articles worth reading has been diminishing of late...
Catch up with the times. s/IBM/Microsoft/
The true tragedy is CIO's who think, because they've mastered Excel or Access, believe they've got a firm understanding of enterprise systems and make decisions based upon this belief. It'd be comic if it hadn't resulted in many a night's lost sleep shoring up disasters. Sometimes you've gotta leave to see how much you were suckered into sacrificing your life and health, trying to make a bad choice look good.
I can't even remember all the times I nearly told someone off, with a lot of colorful language, in a meeting and quit. I do know at least once I was about a heartbeat from it and I still don't know why I didn't say what so desperately needed to be said.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Quite correct. Would you also agree that one of the root causes of all these is that the profession is quite young. And because IMHO the situation is and will be relatively volatile in the following years, we have phenomena like these.
In my country, a civil engineer cannot undertake major projects (like say a bridge) unless he/she has reached a certain "level" which is determined by his past projects and experience. So there is a natural flow that requires that younger engineers must start from the low and climb their way up. The real difference is that this mechanism is in place to prevent companies from hiring younger inexperienced engineers just to cut costs. And that's because there must be assurance that the bridge must be built correctly, or peoples lifes will be in danger.
As time passes and our profession becomes equally crucial in many cases, I believe that the same problem will make its appearance. What we need to do is to get organized and support independent regulation authorities which will prevent companies from doing anything they think its cheaper.
Of cource, before anything else, we ourselves must take our profession seriously because it is no longer a game.
Even worse ...
Boss: What do you think of this? (C'mon you know damn well this question has been posed to you and you've seen these same results)
IT: It might work, but will take 112 days from initiation to the production. It will require a work force of 384 slaves, 34 slave drivers, 12 engineers, 2 turtle doves, and a partridge in a pear tree. The work will need to be managed by a command team composed of 234 bureaucrats, 2347 secretaries (at least two of whom could type), 12,256 paper shufflers, 52,469 rubber stampers, 245,193 red tape processors, and nearly one million dead trees
Boss: But, in the end it'll work, right?
IT: Well...
Boss: We're getting it anyway, I've already ordered it *BIG GRIN*
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You can't do real work on a Mac
namely,
MYTH: second tape of a backup set will always be bad.
REALITY: only the tape ahead of the data you need, and the blocks in which the data you need reside, will be unrecoverable. in any tape format.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The problem here is rather those in accounting who always open email attachments, preferrably those ending in .exe or .com .
And you would do the exact same thing the first time you got laid...
" So, no need to read the article, then?"
There is no need to article. Not because of slashdot but because it's just a few anecdotes put together as if they mean anything.
It's a stupid fluff piece. Wake me when somebody does a decent study.
evil is as evil does
this is how it should go:
;)
Boss: But it IS better than what we have...right?
IT: No
At this point he wonder why, and then you lay on all the negatives, no buts, howevers, or 'maybe if we's'.
Its called Social skills.
I have experienced that the statement 'Well, technically..' is never any damn good.It always gets interpeted in a manner that is positive to the listeners opinions, and not the speakers opinion.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So:
An official at Oblix concurs. "[IT personnel] like the leverage that they have by keeping it a heterogeneous environment," says Ken Sims, vice president of marketing and business development at Oblix.
The VP of Marketing and business development thinks this. An engineer who obviously knows what he's talking about.
What a complete load of crap. We saw this a year or more ago in an Economist article about IT staff wanting nothing more than to save their own jobs in the face of inevitable automation.
Repeat after me, it's nonsense. Hooey. Claptrap. Most IT personnel I know are too busy keeping things running. And yes, all big shops I know _are_ multiplatform. VMS, Windows, Solaris, HP-UX, proprietary mainframe crap, etc etc etc. You've all seen it.
I'm sorry, but this is just one example of how this article discredits itself. I hate this kind of shit--it just gives managers dangerous and wrong ideas about how the IT world works.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
And one day, when *you* get laid, you'll see why it is we prefer chicks to computers
As much as it would be hard for my friends and coworkers to believe, I am not a virgin. Yes I have had sex and I still tend to prefer computers to girls.
Don't get me wrong. Given the choice between a night with a sparcstation and a night with Natalie Portman I'd choose Natalie Portman anyday. But in reality, sadly, those are not the choices.
In reality I can work my ass off trying to impress some woman and then be forced to spend at least 50% of my limited freetime doing what she wants and I also have to hang out with her idiot friends and talk to her her dumbass family members on holidays and all kinds of other equally abhorrent stuff. And why? So that I can get laid a couple times a week? I've been there and done that and it is just not worth it. I'll take computers.
Now if I could find a girl who was kinda like Marla from Fight Club, then I might change my mind about girls. The problem is that most girls are lamers and the ones who aren't are already taken or wouldn't go out with me anyways.
And the fact is you don't need a girlfriend to gat laid. Get out the Yellow Pages and look under Massage Parlour and go to the ones that have adverts reading "Asian massage" and "Full Service." It'll cost you about one C-note plus a twenty dollar tip and most of the chicks are hot.
+5 Insightful?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
I can only work from my own experience, but:
IT Myth 1: Server upgrades matter
At a nimble shop (i.e. mine) they do. Of course I don't upgrade the servers while in production. Duh! I remove them from production, upgrade them (often by mixing and matching parts), and then assign a new task. When I'm at the top of my form, the hardware goes through about three different production cycles before being retired for power or reliability reasons. Each cycle sees it in a substantially different configuration where it has to meet different requirements.
Not everybody does things this way... Some always launch a new production server with newly purchased hardware. But if they do they're spending more money than they need to.
IT Myth 4: CIOs and CTOs have a greater need for business savvy than tech expertise
Nevertheless, CIOs usually get the job because they are business savvy guys who have found a functional middle-ground with their tech-savvy underlings. They are, in other words, slightly better listeners than the average businessman.
Technical experts to not mistake CIOs for technical experts. That's left for other businessmen and journalists to do.
IT Myth 5: Most IT projects fail
Since the big corporate shift to Java, Visual Basic and dot-net, few projects fail outright anymore. The language structures themselves tend to prevent the most blatent mistakes that would otherwise require experts to fix. Of course, that allows mediocre developers to talk their way into senior positions and it leaves them every bit as mediocre when it comes to solving subtle problems. The projects often end up almost-sort-of-working (you know what I mean!) and they do get deployed. They also get replaced with another almost-sort-of-working product two years down the line after it has becomes obvious that the original software isn't making the grade.
The real difference is that a failed project in Java is marginally deployable while a failed project in C probably can't leave the shop.
Meanwhile, as something of a corollary to Paul Graham's piece about programming languages, the few projects which use another language tend to attract and group good developers who don't want to compete with the posers for senior positions. With less dispersal of the talented, those projects have a much better chance of success than they used to.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.