It almost like all health care are government agencies now. The acumen is generally horrible on all fronts. Some of them have good customer service if they have to service white people with good insurance that have choices. The rest of society is signaled quite clearly how much they are valued when engaging medical services.
"or by making problems which they then must "fix""
I have seen people propel themselves to stardom and recognition by fixing the disasters they directly created. It was not until I was a technical lead in a major "bet the company" project that I understood how important failed projects are to boosting the careers of people, not just in IT.
No one gets recognized adequately for a project that gets implemented without disrupting anything. It is when the projects blow up in the whole company's face that the people who caused it (and those who help fix it) are rewarded with promotions, raises, and stardom. People in IT think logically. Smooth project == good for my career. Yes, in some cases. If you really want to jump a few ranks in pay and title get on a big project that is doomed to fail.
"So to answer the question: Companies are not under-investing, they mostly do not really know shit about their infrastructure and the few managers that get to talk about it, they mostly lie about it and the ones that can really speak about it, can not (as they will loose their job/career when they do)."
Yeah, the CIO doesn't want to go to a management meeting to talk about things that could happen and please give us more money to spend. How much? $400k. Everyone loses interest--if they had any to begin with. Just not condusive to helping the CIOs career and standing in the group. Now talking about a current blow up, everybody hangs on his every word and are glad he is there. Money is no object, he is a hero. Approved!
Often, the people qualified to run in InfoSec have better things to do with their career than watching a dashboard and reading logs. IT security in a modern corporation is a fucking joke.
"The employees were extremely frustrated until someone thought of a solution. They made their password "P@ssw0rd1". When they were prompted to change their password, they changed it to "P@ssw0rd2", then "P@ssw0rd3", going up to "P@ssw0rd14" before starting over. Whoever it was that thought to do that was so proud of their ingenuity that they told some of their coworkers, and before you knew it, half the people in the company were using the same convention, literally using "P@ssw0rd" each time. A couple of the IT guys even thought that was fine, since it met the technical requirements and must therefore be a "strong password"."
Exactly. It is all about culture. The entire company takes it cues from management. If they scoff at security or do not talk about it a lot it isn't a priority.
This happened because someone jokingly suggested it in a all-hands emergency meeting. Never would you do such a thing but Barry from InfoSec mentioned it and management latched on to him and prodded for more information. Before he could tell them it was a stupid idea they were praising him for being a genius. You don't pass up gold like that in the corporate world.
"But it always seems to get worse when the spending happens."
That is the fucked-up truth. Sometimes you are relieved when a disaster strikes and you think the time is now to get things fixed. Then you find out someone is about to throw money at it in the wrong direction. It has come to the point where we cannot communicate openly about the state of our systems and software. No one wants to hear it--ever. Yo have to figure out with the other engineers how to hijack new initiatives (coming from the top) to purchase needed products or carve out time to fix something under the guise of a project line item implementation. It is seriously cloak-and-dagger to get shit done.
I think you are on to something. I came back into the corporate IT world about four years ago after working on my own and basically slinking off for a decade on Slashdot. In the course of my work I was running into ten year veterans (people who had been in the trenches for a decade while I was sitting at home hacking and smoking weed) who could not answer basic questions about the technology they were trying to implement. In the time I was away from corporate shit-hell I was able to research and develop in any language I wanted and work on any technology I was interested in, and spent a lot of time doing just that. Those extensive exercises gave as much or more knowledge and experience as these high and mighty architects who had been "working" for ten years or more. In short order I was asked to join the ranks of the high and mighty architects where I have been since. Having never built an enterprise system I was still able to fix their massive mistakes, document the real root cause of those mistakes, and help pave the way toward building things that worked without falling on their face when they hit prod. I make more than all of them now--way more.
Me: Do you know anything about IIS? Prod Support: What's that...starts laughing. Me: The thing that runs our business that you are supposed to be supporting.
Yes. Real security gets batted down constantly. Hardly anyone has the stomach for the inconvenience, price, continual overhead, and adjustments to the culture that are required to get it right. Real security is hard.
Everyone pays because they are completely bent over--and they typically get their files back. The "hackers" are not in to playing games. When they return the data to people it pretty much ensures that they will be quiet after the incident. Very embarrassing and often a violation for those governed by certain regulatory bodies--they just want to forget it happened. Don't forget that the price is often way less than actually securing the data.
In my experience it takes a team of people on-shore to micromanage the offshore. Stress is high, progress is slow, and you end up with MORE people involved. A perfect recipe for IT disaster.
Yeah...but literally anyone can do that with the average competency witnessed in everyday life. If they do not involve themselves in technical matters whatsoever and merely remove barriers for the engineers then the relationship is approved. If they start trying to make technical decisions and back away from things because of their ignorance then I have no use for them. They are just another thing I have to work around and manage myself. In either case, don't be surprised when the engineers make more than the manager. IT management is usually a bad career move. Your tech chops immediately decline and your skills are very cheap/easy to replace with another willing, yet unskilled, people pleaser.
Nah. It helps them. When you show noobs how to play their game they are less likely to run away crying. Witnessing the success of Creimer on YouTube, I had to get in on the action.
1080 HD looks like shit on YouTube. My monitor is a cheap TCL 49" 4K TV--it looks/works great. When I watch video I always look for 4k since the 1080 stuff looks like shit on my monitor. I suspect a lot of other people are in the same boat which is why I want to record and play back in 60fps 4k. 1080 is dead or dying quick.
Slashdot Mirror
It almost like all health care are government agencies now. The acumen is generally horrible on all fronts. Some of them have good customer service if they have to service white people with good insurance that have choices. The rest of society is signaled quite clearly how much they are valued when engaging medical services.
"or by making problems which they then must "fix""
I have seen people propel themselves to stardom and recognition by fixing the disasters they directly created. It was not until I was a technical lead in a major "bet the company" project that I understood how important failed projects are to boosting the careers of people, not just in IT.
No one gets recognized adequately for a project that gets implemented without disrupting anything. It is when the projects blow up in the whole company's face that the people who caused it (and those who help fix it) are rewarded with promotions, raises, and stardom. People in IT think logically. Smooth project == good for my career. Yes, in some cases. If you really want to jump a few ranks in pay and title get on a big project that is doomed to fail.
"Leadership likes to be sold on things. "
One of the most insightful things anyone has said so far.
"So to answer the question: Companies are not under-investing, they mostly do not really know shit about their infrastructure and the few managers that get to talk about it, they mostly lie about it and the ones that can really speak about it, can not (as they will loose their job/career when they do)."
Seen this go down many times.
Yeah, the CIO doesn't want to go to a management meeting to talk about things that could happen and please give us more money to spend. How much? $400k. Everyone loses interest--if they had any to begin with. Just not condusive to helping the CIOs career and standing in the group. Now talking about a current blow up, everybody hangs on his every word and are glad he is there. Money is no object, he is a hero. Approved!
Often, the people qualified to run in InfoSec have better things to do with their career than watching a dashboard and reading logs. IT security in a modern corporation is a fucking joke.
"The employees were extremely frustrated until someone thought of a solution. They made their password "P@ssw0rd1". When they were prompted to change their password, they changed it to "P@ssw0rd2", then "P@ssw0rd3", going up to "P@ssw0rd14" before starting over. Whoever it was that thought to do that was so proud of their ingenuity that they told some of their coworkers, and before you knew it, half the people in the company were using the same convention, literally using "P@ssw0rd" each time. A couple of the IT guys even thought that was fine, since it met the technical requirements and must therefore be a "strong password"."
This is the very definition of modern InfoSec.
Exactly. It is all about culture. The entire company takes it cues from management. If they scoff at security or do not talk about it a lot it isn't a priority.
This happened because someone jokingly suggested it in a all-hands emergency meeting. Never would you do such a thing but Barry from InfoSec mentioned it and management latched on to him and prodded for more information. Before he could tell them it was a stupid idea they were praising him for being a genius. You don't pass up gold like that in the corporate world.
"But it always seems to get worse when the spending happens."
That is the fucked-up truth. Sometimes you are relieved when a disaster strikes and you think the time is now to get things fixed. Then you find out someone is about to throw money at it in the wrong direction. It has come to the point where we cannot communicate openly about the state of our systems and software. No one wants to hear it--ever. Yo have to figure out with the other engineers how to hijack new initiatives (coming from the top) to purchase needed products or carve out time to fix something under the guise of a project line item implementation. It is seriously cloak-and-dagger to get shit done.
I think you are on to something. I came back into the corporate IT world about four years ago after working on my own and basically slinking off for a decade on Slashdot. In the course of my work I was running into ten year veterans (people who had been in the trenches for a decade while I was sitting at home hacking and smoking weed) who could not answer basic questions about the technology they were trying to implement. In the time I was away from corporate shit-hell I was able to research and develop in any language I wanted and work on any technology I was interested in, and spent a lot of time doing just that. Those extensive exercises gave as much or more knowledge and experience as these high and mighty architects who had been "working" for ten years or more. In short order I was asked to join the ranks of the high and mighty architects where I have been since. Having never built an enterprise system I was still able to fix their massive mistakes, document the real root cause of those mistakes, and help pave the way toward building things that worked without falling on their face when they hit prod. I make more than all of them now--way more.
Me: Do you know anything about IIS?
Prod Support: What's that...starts laughing.
Me: The thing that runs our business that you are supposed to be supporting.
Wow. I charge $200 an hour just to land onsite--two hour minimum. Tends to filter out the assholes and idiots.
Yes. Real security gets batted down constantly. Hardly anyone has the stomach for the inconvenience, price, continual overhead, and adjustments to the culture that are required to get it right. Real security is hard.
Everyone pays because they are completely bent over--and they typically get their files back. The "hackers" are not in to playing games. When they return the data to people it pretty much ensures that they will be quiet after the incident. Very embarrassing and often a violation for those governed by certain regulatory bodies--they just want to forget it happened. Don't forget that the price is often way less than actually securing the data.
In my experience it takes a team of people on-shore to micromanage the offshore. Stress is high, progress is slow, and you end up with MORE people involved. A perfect recipe for IT disaster.
Because it FEELS safe. No. Other. Reason.
Wow. Is that a Dilbert comic?
Where have you been? HR just keeps their head down. The last thing they want is to be involved with the messy, sticky issues pointed out by the OP.
Yeah...but literally anyone can do that with the average competency witnessed in everyday life. If they do not involve themselves in technical matters whatsoever and merely remove barriers for the engineers then the relationship is approved. If they start trying to make technical decisions and back away from things because of their ignorance then I have no use for them. They are just another thing I have to work around and manage myself. In either case, don't be surprised when the engineers make more than the manager. IT management is usually a bad career move. Your tech chops immediately decline and your skills are very cheap/easy to replace with another willing, yet unskilled, people pleaser.
I paste Dilbert comics on my carbuncle.
Nah. It helps them. When you show noobs how to play their game they are less likely to run away crying. Witnessing the success of Creimer on YouTube, I had to get in on the action.
I have everything turned up to 11.
1080 HD looks like shit on YouTube. My monitor is a cheap TCL 49" 4K TV--it looks/works great. When I watch video I always look for 4k since the 1080 stuff looks like shit on my monitor. I suspect a lot of other people are in the same boat which is why I want to record and play back in 60fps 4k. 1080 is dead or dying quick.
200 down, 10 up