3 ms·

I wrote this in another comment, but I should have been more clear. Since this is the discussion about the Exchange hack, I was thinking in the context of large

by mlac 6y ago

I wrote this in another comment, but I should have been more clear. Since this is the discussion about the Exchange hack, I was thinking in the context of large organizations and their internal IT architecture and being able to build from scratch without legacy bloat. The challenge is “how do we run this organization as efficiently and securely as possible? What tools does the business need in place to get the job done? Is our current set sufficient?”. The fact that any company hands a new employee a Windows 7 laptop in 2021 shouldn’t be happening, but a surprising number of Fortune 500 companies are in that state because of legacy dependencies that require Win 7 to operate. I think the ability to give an organization the opportunity to reset every 3 years would keep things efficient, better integrated, and identify legacy issues that often come up and cause emergencies (the guy who wrote that script left the company 5 years ago and it runs on a server under this desk... we just don’t touch it). Right now, upgrading a payment system may be difficult due to certain dependencies or other legacy internal systems. If the whole architecture is being re-done, there is a lot more flexibility.

bopbeepboop 6y ago
Yeah — I agree that it’s an interesting idea. I was trying to understand if I’d pictured what you said right: you have two teams each doing that cycle half a phase out of step so one team does systems 1,3,5... and the other does 2,4,6.... I was picturing situations like finance, data centers, SCADA, etc. I think a lot of people don’t realize that when you have a cycle timed right, your eg architects don’t just sit idle. They’re only on “maintain” for a year before they start on the next system upgrade. It’s a good idea.

3 ms·

I wrote this in another comment, but I should have been more clear. Since this is the discussion about the Exchange hack, I was thinking in the context of large

by mlac 6y ago

bopbeepboop 6y ago
Yeah — I agree that it’s an interesting idea. I was trying to understand if I’d pictured what you said right: you have two teams each doing that cycle half a phase out of step so one team does systems 1,3,5... and the other does 2,4,6.... I was picturing situations like finance, data centers, SCADA, etc. I think a lot of people don’t realize that when you have a cycle timed right, your eg architects don’t just sit idle. They’re only on “maintain” for a year before they start on the next system upgrade. It’s a good idea.