2 ms·
I don't doubt that, but it's $2 Billion we're talking. An 'unfamiliar database' does not begin to cover it. Neither do 'last minute changes'. It was a boondo
by jomamaxx 10y ago
I don't doubt that, but it's $2 Billion we're talking.
An 'unfamiliar database' does not begin to cover it.
Neither do 'last minute changes'.
It was a boondogle from the start, failure in gov, failure in planning etc., failure to understand what they are doing.
Google Engineers had to come in and fix it.
- hga 10y agoI'm sorry for my lack of clarity: An unfamiliar database paradigm. If it was some random RDBMS there wouldn't have been a huge problem there. You ignored the constantly late transmission of requirements, and I can't believe you're saying that a fundamental re-engineering of the way the site worked 2 or less weeks before launch should be trivialized. How are you even going to test that, when you don't really have the time to implement it well?