4 ms·

Blaming an individual for systemic failures is bad form (even for Microsoft). If you read the post, you'd see the QA org saw that Easter Egg, took it in the rig

Blaming an individual for systemic failures is bad form (even for Microsoft). If you read the post, you'd see the QA org saw that Easter Egg, took it in the right spirit (like they should), and signed it okay for beta release (mistakenly, I'd presume) followed by everyone else in the bureaucratic chain that might have okay'd it as well.

colinmhayes 4y ago
> Blaming an individual for systemic failures is bad form I agree if the failure is actually a mistake. The developer in this scenario included the gesture on purpose. Pretty clearly shows they don't have the best judgement imo.
- coryrc 4y ago
  It's harmless. It's funny. Some of you just need to relax and bring back some joy to programming.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    I'm a bit torn. Yea, it's harmless, but making your OS flip people off isn't really funny. I just feel like it would be hard to trust this programmers judgement if they thought this was an appropriate joke to make.
    - Verdex 4y ago
      It's not great, but I think the real question is twofold. Is the programmer far enough in their career to have been expected to already learn this lesson and did the programmer in fact learn the lesson. If they're young and they never do it again, then I think it would be fine to keep the hire. If they keep on doing it, then it's time to go. If they're 25 years into their career, then they should almost definitely have known better.
      - gnulinux 4y ago
        Isn't this a bit backwards? I expect a new hire to understand that they can't put all their initiatives into the product, certainly not a joke, unless they're explicitly told otherwise. I'd expect a new hire to understand there is a natural pace for everything to grow -- as in all relationships -- so they can't go all out on day 1. On the other hand, I'd want a senior engineer to use their initiative a lot more often. They would also understand that their job is to contribute confidently to the best of their ability.
        pvg 4y ago
        You won't end up with many senior engineers using their initiative if you beat it out of them before they get to being senior engineers.
    - grp000 4y ago
      Yeah, it's not funny, it's hilarious.
    - throwaway675309 4y ago
      Given that one of the original mouse cursors for Microsoft windows was an actual index finger that's pointing, I find it actually pretty amusing. Oh noes the middle finger, there goes the neighborhood...
    - hnfong 4y ago
      Agree, but people have made worse mistakes at that age. Some of them learn and grow. (but, granted, not everyone!)
  - Closi 4y ago
    Depends what we mean when we say harmless - It’s not harmless to brand image, consumer trust and ultimately sales if those drop. Intentionally hiding offensive things in the code does show poor judgement to me. If it was a sad face, fair enough, and if it triggers based on an intentional set of actions by the user as an Easter egg that’s another thing, but using a swear symbol in an error check and committing that to the codebase? Pretty poor judgement imo
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
joemi 4y ago
And yet they _did_ blame the individual, by saying "the individual responsible for this regrettable act is no longer with the company." This is why I'm surprised they hired him. My surprise that they hired him has nothing to do with whether or not _I_ think they should have hired him. It has everything to do with the fact that they publicly blamed the individual, and that it was Microsoft. I would expect their hiring decision to be informed by whatever corporate higher-ups caused them to publicly blame the individual.
cpeterso 4y ago
As with most system failures, there is no (one) "root cause": The intern developer should not have committed the middle finger cursor. A code reviewer should not have approved the code change. If there was no code review (and there probably wasn't during the Windows 3.1 era), especially of an intern's code, then that's another problem with the system. QA should not have approved the beta build with a bug that could impact the company's reputation. A bug report was filed, but whoever triaged the bug report didn't escalate the issue before the beta release. Finally, the engineering manager probably should not have rehired the intern as a full-time employee.
- watwut 4y ago
  This was not root cause. This is analysis of contributing factors. Root cause of middle finger cursor is individual who made middle finger cursor. That review could have caught it does not make the above less of actual root cause.
  - gweinberg 4y ago
    No, that's backwards. Sloppy qa was the root cause of this getting to the beta testers, the fact that it was a prank rather than a mistake is irrelevant. Microsoft was lucky their sloppy qa was reveled by something so innocuous instead of by a genuinely harmful commit.
    - UnpossibleJim 4y ago
      >>If you read the post, you'd see the QA org saw that Easter Egg, took it in the right spirit (like they should), and signed it okay for beta release (mistakenly, I'd presume) followed by everyone else in the bureaucratic chain that might have okay'd it as well.<< As mentioned above, there were a string of failures. Don't just blame QA for finding the bugs that don't get fixed. If it gets signed off, it gets signed off, there are a bunch of departments that can look at the bug database as well. And, in the end, 9/10 of the people who found this people probably loved the fact that Microsoft finally showed a little bit of soul.
    - 4y ago
simonh 4y ago
It doesn’t say QA approved it before it went to beta testers. Just that it went to beta testers. That may well have happened before it completed thorough QA (though it probably went through a quick sanity check).

colinmhayes 4y ago

> Blaming an individual for systemic failures is bad form I agree if the failure is actually a mistake. The developer in this scenario included the gesture on purpose. Pretty clearly shows they don't have the best judgement imo.

coryrc 4y ago
It's harmless. It's funny. Some of you just need to relax and bring back some joy to programming.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  I'm a bit torn. Yea, it's harmless, but making your OS flip people off isn't really funny. I just feel like it would be hard to trust this programmers judgement if they thought this was an appropriate joke to make.
  - Verdex 4y ago
    It's not great, but I think the real question is twofold. Is the programmer far enough in their career to have been expected to already learn this lesson and did the programmer in fact learn the lesson. If they're young and they never do it again, then I think it would be fine to keep the hire. If they keep on doing it, then it's time to go. If they're 25 years into their career, then they should almost definitely have known better.
    - gnulinux 4y ago
      Isn't this a bit backwards? I expect a new hire to understand that they can't put all their initiatives into the product, certainly not a joke, unless they're explicitly told otherwise. I'd expect a new hire to understand there is a natural pace for everything to grow -- as in all relationships -- so they can't go all out on day 1. On the other hand, I'd want a senior engineer to use their initiative a lot more often. They would also understand that their job is to contribute confidently to the best of their ability.
      - pvg 4y ago
        You won't end up with many senior engineers using their initiative if you beat it out of them before they get to being senior engineers.
  - grp000 4y ago
    Yeah, it's not funny, it's hilarious.
  - throwaway675309 4y ago
    Given that one of the original mouse cursors for Microsoft windows was an actual index finger that's pointing, I find it actually pretty amusing. Oh noes the middle finger, there goes the neighborhood...
  - hnfong 4y ago
    Agree, but people have made worse mistakes at that age. Some of them learn and grow. (but, granted, not everyone!)
- Closi 4y ago
  Depends what we mean when we say harmless - It’s not harmless to brand image, consumer trust and ultimately sales if those drop. Intentionally hiding offensive things in the code does show poor judgement to me. If it was a sad face, fair enough, and if it triggers based on an intentional set of actions by the user as an Easter egg that’s another thing, but using a swear symbol in an error check and committing that to the codebase? Pretty poor judgement imo
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

joemi 4y ago

And yet they _did_ blame the individual, by saying "the individual responsible for this regrettable act is no longer with the company." This is why I'm surprised they hired him. My surprise that they hired him has nothing to do with whether or not _I_ think they should have hired him. It has everything to do with the fact that they publicly blamed the individual, and that it was Microsoft. I would expect their hiring decision to be informed by whatever corporate higher-ups caused them to publicly blame the individual.

cpeterso 4y ago

As with most system failures, there is no (one) "root cause": The intern developer should not have committed the middle finger cursor. A code reviewer should not have approved the code change. If there was no code review (and there probably wasn't during the Windows 3.1 era), especially of an intern's code, then that's another problem with the system. QA should not have approved the beta build with a bug that could impact the company's reputation. A bug report was filed, but whoever triaged the bug report didn't escalate the issue before the beta release. Finally, the engineering manager probably should not have rehired the intern as a full-time employee.

watwut 4y ago
This was not root cause. This is analysis of contributing factors. Root cause of middle finger cursor is individual who made middle finger cursor. That review could have caught it does not make the above less of actual root cause.
- gweinberg 4y ago
  No, that's backwards. Sloppy qa was the root cause of this getting to the beta testers, the fact that it was a prank rather than a mistake is irrelevant. Microsoft was lucky their sloppy qa was reveled by something so innocuous instead of by a genuinely harmful commit.
  - UnpossibleJim 4y ago
    >>If you read the post, you'd see the QA org saw that Easter Egg, took it in the right spirit (like they should), and signed it okay for beta release (mistakenly, I'd presume) followed by everyone else in the bureaucratic chain that might have okay'd it as well.<< As mentioned above, there were a string of failures. Don't just blame QA for finding the bugs that don't get fixed. If it gets signed off, it gets signed off, there are a bunch of departments that can look at the bug database as well. And, in the end, 9/10 of the people who found this people probably loved the fact that Microsoft finally showed a little bit of soul.
  - 4y ago

simonh 4y ago

It doesn’t say QA approved it before it went to beta testers. Just that it went to beta testers. That may well have happened before it completed thorough QA (though it probably went through a quick sanity check).