4 ms·

Corollary: Breaking things isn't an option for some businesses.

vinceguidry 11y ago
Only if your industry is capital rather than labor intensive, in which case you'll have elaborate procedures in place for safeguarding and maintaining your infrastructure. For everyone else, a certain amount of breakage is expected. When things break, there are generally manual processes that can be put into place to keep business moving.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > Only if your industry is capital rather than labor intensive Or if your business is safety-critical, or financial, or storing other peoples' data, or...
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    Those are the very definition of capital-intensive.
    - VLM 11y ago
      Some of them used to be. Some still are.
- pjmorris 11y ago
  From a Windows 10 automatic unintentional update story [1]: 'The action led to comments where life was actually being put at risk by the unilateral action: "I needed to set up my department's bronchoscopy cart quickly for someone with some sick lungs. I shit you not, when I turned on the computer it had to do a Windows update."' Question 1: Labor-intensive business or capital-intensive business? Question 2: Whose elaborate safeguard procedure failed? [1] - http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2450852/updategate-microsoft-is-reportedly-upgrading-pcs-to-windows-10-automatically http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2450852/updategate-...
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    Poorly-managed capital-intensive business. It's poorly-managed precisely because there weren't any safeguard procedures. Why the hell wasn't someone checking to make sure such a critical piece of equipment is always at the ready?
  - slededit 11y ago
    > 2: Whose elaborate safeguard procedure failed? Since Windows was never intended to serve a life support/saving function - it was the fault of whatever OEM chose to use it in that capacity. They took on the onus to have it work correctly when they chose it as a platform.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      MS used to specifically include "Do not use this for safety critical stuff" in the EULA. Does anyone know when they took it out? And why? > “The Microsoft software was designed for systems that do not require fail-safe performance. You may not use the Microsoft software in any device or system in which a malfunction of the software would result in foreseeable risk of injury or death to any person.”

Only if your industry is capital rather than labor intensive, in which case you'll have elaborate procedures in place for safeguarding and maintaining your infrastructure. For everyone else, a certain amount of breakage is expected. When things break, there are generally manual processes that can be put into place to keep business moving.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> Only if your industry is capital rather than labor intensive Or if your business is safety-critical, or financial, or storing other peoples' data, or...
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  Those are the very definition of capital-intensive.
  - VLM 11y ago
    Some of them used to be. Some still are.
pjmorris 11y ago
From a Windows 10 automatic unintentional update story [1]: 'The action led to comments where life was actually being put at risk by the unilateral action: "I needed to set up my department's bronchoscopy cart quickly for someone with some sick lungs. I shit you not, when I turned on the computer it had to do a Windows update."' Question 1: Labor-intensive business or capital-intensive business? Question 2: Whose elaborate safeguard procedure failed? [1] - http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2450852/updategate-microsoft-is-reportedly-upgrading-pcs-to-windows-10-automatically http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2450852/updategate-...
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  Poorly-managed capital-intensive business. It's poorly-managed precisely because there weren't any safeguard procedures. Why the hell wasn't someone checking to make sure such a critical piece of equipment is always at the ready?
- slededit 11y ago
  > 2: Whose elaborate safeguard procedure failed? Since Windows was never intended to serve a life support/saving function - it was the fault of whatever OEM chose to use it in that capacity. They took on the onus to have it work correctly when they chose it as a platform.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    MS used to specifically include "Do not use this for safety critical stuff" in the EULA. Does anyone know when they took it out? And why? > “The Microsoft software was designed for systems that do not require fail-safe performance. You may not use the Microsoft software in any device or system in which a malfunction of the software would result in foreseeable risk of injury or death to any person.”