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.
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
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.