4 ms·

I've actually always hated this tendency for enterprises to require so much time to accept changes. This isn't the damned Space Shuttle. And this kind of over

I've actually always hated this tendency for enterprises to require so much time to accept changes. This isn't the damned Space Shuttle. And this kind of over-caution means exactly one thing: "support" people who generally have no idea how to respond to a real crisis, because they've had little experience dealing with actual issues and spend all their time trying to avoid these minor inconveniences. When you take your car into the shop, sometimes you find things are a bit worse than you thought and you need to adapt to a loaner for a couple of days. It's not the end of the world, either way you have a car and you end up where you want to be. People have been adapting to minor issues for a long time. Computer users are not completely stupid: if the new version of Firefox breaks something one morning, they can be told "okay, please use the old one for a few more weeks" and they're on their merry way. In the meantime, with a side copy someone can figure out exactly what's broken. It sure doesn't require weeks upon weeks of revalidating who knows what "just in case" there's a problem.

teyc 15y ago
No. If you called Sprint and the operator told you he/she can't update your customer details because the latest version of FF was incompatible with the CRM software they were using, you'd be rather unhappy. This is why I.T. departments have to test and certify the platform as being compatible.
- makecheck 15y ago
  Actually, what I'd expect is that they wouldn't tell me they even have a problem; I'd expect them to take down my requested changes according to their backup plan. (They do have one, right?) For instance, there might be a form upon which an agent can write down required customer changes, that is then filed so that the system can be brought up to date later when it's back online. If an operator "can't update" something, it is the fault of the company for not having contingency plans. Suppose Firefox was upgraded without a hitch and passed all their tests, but then there was a power outage in the server room...why should the customer even care about the difference between these two? Often the same contingency plan applies to many different cases, it's just a matter of actually having an organization with this kind of advance preparation.
  - teyc 15y ago
    So, let's say FF27 was incompatible. Should an enterprise then run FF4 where security patches are no longer provided? The correct conclusion would that enterprises shouldn't run FF in the first place.
    - makecheck 15y ago
      At least compare it to running FF26, which is the overwhelmingly-likely backup plan in such a case (i.e. they were probably using FF26 before, so they continue to use it until they have time to fix things for FF27). Staying back one version is not unreasonable. If the company has waited 23 versions to upgrade, then it's basically their fault for being in that situation. Security patches aren't always relevant; having a working browser (any browser) trumps all. If in fact there is no patched Firefox that works, but some other patched browser does work, then the more-patched browser wins. But if the only working browser is missing a few patches, big deal; use it anyway, and consider it added motivation to upgrade company infrastructure. You're not going to shut down the company for 4 weeks because the browsers are unpatched, I hope.
      - teyc 15y ago
        The actual practice in software houses is to certify their software against a limited number of browser versions. Otherwise, the testing costs would be too high. In addition, software couldn't be tested against unreleased versions, so no matter what, the certified environments would always be out of date. This is not a problem as long as security issues have been addressed. You will not find any vendor who promises you that their software will work against the next version of Firefox. So, as the I.T. head, you need to make cautious choices so that the technology mix will in fact work.

teyc 15y ago

No. If you called Sprint and the operator told you he/she can't update your customer details because the latest version of FF was incompatible with the CRM software they were using, you'd be rather unhappy. This is why I.T. departments have to test and certify the platform as being compatible.

makecheck 15y ago
Actually, what I'd expect is that they wouldn't tell me they even have a problem; I'd expect them to take down my requested changes according to their backup plan. (They do have one, right?) For instance, there might be a form upon which an agent can write down required customer changes, that is then filed so that the system can be brought up to date later when it's back online. If an operator "can't update" something, it is the fault of the company for not having contingency plans. Suppose Firefox was upgraded without a hitch and passed all their tests, but then there was a power outage in the server room...why should the customer even care about the difference between these two? Often the same contingency plan applies to many different cases, it's just a matter of actually having an organization with this kind of advance preparation.
- teyc 15y ago
  So, let's say FF27 was incompatible. Should an enterprise then run FF4 where security patches are no longer provided? The correct conclusion would that enterprises shouldn't run FF in the first place.
  - makecheck 15y ago
    At least compare it to running FF26, which is the overwhelmingly-likely backup plan in such a case (i.e. they were probably using FF26 before, so they continue to use it until they have time to fix things for FF27). Staying back one version is not unreasonable. If the company has waited 23 versions to upgrade, then it's basically their fault for being in that situation. Security patches aren't always relevant; having a working browser (any browser) trumps all. If in fact there is no patched Firefox that works, but some other patched browser does work, then the more-patched browser wins. But if the only working browser is missing a few patches, big deal; use it anyway, and consider it added motivation to upgrade company infrastructure. You're not going to shut down the company for 4 weeks because the browsers are unpatched, I hope.
    - teyc 15y ago
      The actual practice in software houses is to certify their software against a limited number of browser versions. Otherwise, the testing costs would be too high. In addition, software couldn't be tested against unreleased versions, so no matter what, the certified environments would always be out of date. This is not a problem as long as security issues have been addressed. You will not find any vendor who promises you that their software will work against the next version of Firefox. So, as the I.T. head, you need to make cautious choices so that the technology mix will in fact work.