Invisible wrote:

> 5. This just in - HQ have proposed a new, standardised company-wide 
> computer naming scheme.
> 
> They want to name each computer according to where it is in the building.

roflcakes!

I just had the most amusing conversation with the head of IT...

I tried to explain to him that renaming a PC is an expensive operation 
and something that should be avoided at all costs. Some of his responses 
were really quite amusing.

"My *God* - you have a log book for *every* PC on your network?? What on 
earth is the *point* of that?!?"

I manage to avoid exclaiming "...and you *don't*?"

For anybody who doesn't work in this kind of righly-regulated 
environment: Being able to provide an audit trail of *exactly* what has 
happened to a particular computer system is an elementery requirement of 
the industry regulations. (In particular, the same requirements also 
apply in the USA.) The fact that the company head of IT didn't know that 
is... disturbing.

"Wow, that's *insane*! You can't do that...! OK, I'm gonna have to get 
that fixed."

Ahem. Good luck with that one honey. I think the auditors might have a 
little bit to say about the matter. ;-)

Seriously. The very idea that we would actually *record* an audit trail 
and be accountable rather than just do whatever the hell we feel like 
utterly blew his mind. It was a total shock to his system.

Clearly, at HQ they do things a little bit differently. ;-) I always 
thought it was an exaggeration, but now I'm not so sure...



[Hint: If you go to QA and say "oh hai, i r deleted ur audit trails, 
kthxbye" I can *actually guarantee* - as in, I can put money on it - 
that QA will say, in no uncertain terms, "ME NO WANT!!1!". And what QA 
doesn't approve, does not happen. Not without severe legal implicatiosn 
anyway...]

OMG, I should stop reading lolcat!

Post a reply to this message