5 ms·

They're getting decades out of the software, but "about three-fourths of the $80 billion budget goes to keep aging technology running". Is that worth it to you?

by newnop 10y ago

HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
Depends. Where would that 3/4 be going if they invested in new technology? Training? Support?
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Nothing if they keep the interfaces the same. The real cost, immediate and over time, is the port of the applications or systems to new HW and toolchains. I can't overstate enough how many problems this can cause. Especially if they don't have source for these apps or it's barely commented.
- knieveltech 10y ago
  Debugging, constant break-fix, and given the typical quality of modern software bribing the international community into ignoring the occasional unintended ICBM launch. :P
HillRat 10y ago
That isn't a useful metric without details, as it probably includes such sundries as licensing, maintenance agreements, and salaries. A brand-new suite of Oracle enterprise systems would probably be as unfavorable a cost profile.
Kadin 10y ago
"75% of the budget to maintenance, and 25% to new system acquisitions", which is what I suspect that statistic really means, isn't that bad. Honestly it might be heavy on new system acquisitions. I tend to think that enterprise lifecycles are too fast, most of the time, but that's because they're frequently driven by vendor licensing policies that make old-but-working systems prohibitively expensive on purpose. (IBM is notorious for this.) I don't know if there's a name for this already, but I think there's a common fallacy in which people think that a "chuck it and redo it from the ground up" effort will be easier than fixing their existing system's bugs and/or will result in a less-buggy system. But there's a danger in that you're just moving from a situation where you know where all the bugs are, to a situation where you haven't found them yet. I've seen companies that seem to be stuck endlessly in this cycle.

They're getting decades out of the software, but "about three-fourths of the $80 billion budget goes to keep aging technology running". Is that worth it to you?

by newnop 10y ago

They're getting decades out of the software, but "about three-fourths of the $80 billion budget goes to keep aging technology running". Is that worth it to you?

HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago

Depends. Where would that 3/4 be going if they invested in new technology? Training? Support?

nickpsecurity 10y ago
Nothing if they keep the interfaces the same. The real cost, immediate and over time, is the port of the applications or systems to new HW and toolchains. I can't overstate enough how many problems this can cause. Especially if they don't have source for these apps or it's barely commented.
knieveltech 10y ago
Debugging, constant break-fix, and given the typical quality of modern software bribing the international community into ignoring the occasional unintended ICBM launch. :P

HillRat 10y ago

That isn't a useful metric without details, as it probably includes such sundries as licensing, maintenance agreements, and salaries. A brand-new suite of Oracle enterprise systems would probably be as unfavorable a cost profile.

Kadin 10y ago

"75% of the budget to maintenance, and 25% to new system acquisitions", which is what I suspect that statistic really means, isn't that bad. Honestly it might be heavy on new system acquisitions. I tend to think that enterprise lifecycles are too fast, most of the time, but that's because they're frequently driven by vendor licensing policies that make old-but-working systems prohibitively expensive on purpose. (IBM is notorious for this.) I don't know if there's a name for this already, but I think there's a common fallacy in which people think that a "chuck it and redo it from the ground up" effort will be easier than fixing their existing system's bugs and/or will result in a less-buggy system. But there's a danger in that you're just moving from a situation where you know where all the bugs are, to a situation where you haven't found them yet. I've seen companies that seem to be stuck endlessly in this cycle.