And lo on Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:18:56 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> 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*?"

I trust your answer was more along the lines of "We keep them as part of  
the audit trail that is legally required for our industry, both here and  
in the USA" and watched him turn a whiter shade of pale.

Knowing what you do I'm not surprised that you need such a trail;  
disconcerting at the least that your IT head doesn't know that.

> 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."

Hehe that's easy just hire a good lobbying company and get the regulations  
changed for the whole industry - piece of cake it'll all be done in a  
couple of years. I do like "You can't do that" always funny when used in a  
situation where not only have you done that, but have done that for quite  
some time now.

> 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...

What are they doing over there?

> [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!

Yes, yes I think you should.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message