 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm surprised nobody commented on this one...
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/153
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm surprised nobody commented on this one...
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/153
IMHO, keep that paragraph.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> IMHO, keep that paragraph.
LOL! Thanks for the advice... I'll let you know if it leads to a
promotion. ;-)
(Weirder things have happened.)
It's true though. On the surface, the regulations say that you have to
actually test stuff before you go and use it, to make sure it really
does work properly. Which, inconvenient though it is, seems perfectly
reasonable. However, what we have hear is people make me perform a test
purely for the "warm fuzzly feeling" you get from being able to say
"hey, we tested something, and it worked. That's good, right? Right??"
For those of you that grok this stuff, the real problem boils down to
the fact that I'm being asked to perform a "validation" when really it's
a *performance qualification* that is indicated. (But we don't do those
in the first place. But it would "look bad" if we didn't do any testing
at all - even though none is actually necessary, it would still look
bad.) Hence the silly testing. *sigh*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's true though. On the surface, the regulations say that you have to
> actually test stuff before you go and use it, to make sure it really
> does work properly. Which, inconvenient though it is, seems perfectly
> reasonable. However, what we have hear is people make me perform a test
> purely for the "warm fuzzly feeling" you get from being able to say
> "hey, we tested something, and it worked. That's good, right? Right??"
Testing after any change seems like a good idea. Unless the test takes
more than five minutes. And you mentioned months on your blog post; so
they can put the test in thei-- ERROR: NNTP connection reset by peer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> It's true though. On the surface, the regulations say that you have to
>> actually test stuff before you go and use it, to make sure it really
>> does work properly. Which, inconvenient though it is, seems perfectly
>> reasonable. However, what we have hear is people make me perform a
>> test purely for the "warm fuzzly feeling" you get from being able to
>> say "hey, we tested something, and it worked. That's good, right?
>> Right??"
>
> Testing after any change seems like a good idea. Unless the test takes
> more than five minutes. And you mentioned months on your blog post; so
> they can put the test in thei-- ERROR: NNTP connection reset by peer.
Define "change".
The computers will be unplugged, moved from one building to another, and
plugged back in.
It's not like I'm changing any settings or anything. Just the physical
location of the boxes. It's not like software has yet reached the point
of being aware of its surroundings.
[Insert paranoid delusional remarks here.]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:55:12 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> I'm surprised nobody commented on this one...
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/153
The login requirement makes it a bit hard to, since I've got accounts in
several other blogs already...
I actually have some documents from a move I did (it was a much larger
move with many more considerations - and users moving over something like
a 6 week period into the new building), but I thought they might be
useful for you to see what others have done in somewhat similar
situations.
I can scrub names out of the docs and send to you - I believe I know your
work e-mail address, so if you want, I can ping you there to make sure
and then forward them along.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:01:24 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>>> It's true though. On the surface, the regulations say that you have to
>>> actually test stuff before you go and use it, to make sure it really
>>> does work properly. Which, inconvenient though it is, seems perfectly
>>> reasonable. However, what we have hear is people make me perform a
>>> test purely for the "warm fuzzly feeling" you get from being able to
>>> say "hey, we tested something, and it worked. That's good, right?
>>> Right??"
>>
>> Testing after any change seems like a good idea. Unless the test takes
>> more than five minutes. And you mentioned months on your blog post; so
>> they can put the test in thei-- ERROR: NNTP connection reset by peer.
>
> Define "change".
>
> The computers will be unplugged, moved from one building to another, and
> plugged back in.
>
> It's not like I'm changing any settings or anything. Just the physical
> location of the boxes. It's not like software has yet reached the point
> of being aware of its surroundings.
Is the network numbering scheme the same, or does it change? Same number
of subnets, same routers, etc?
Server IP addresses stay the same? You may find some "rogue" processes
that depend on specific IP addresses that you weren't previously aware of
if you're changing addressing schemes.
ISTR you said it's all happening at once, so maybe these things aren't
changing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
> The computers will be unplugged, moved from one building to another, and
> plugged back in.
>
A couple of months ago, a nice young network tech of my acquaintance [1]
took a job in another state and moved out of the family home. [2] His
mother [3] and her significant other decided to move the SO's computer
to the son's former bedroom. All they had to do was unplug everything,
carry it through a couple of rooms and down the hall, and plug it in
again. Shortly thereafter, my phone began to ring.
After explaining repeatedly that programmers don't change light bulbs
[4], I agreed to investigate the matter. [5] It seems that the video
card was unseated [6], the keyboard was plugged into the PS2 mouse port
[7], the speakers were plugged into the microphone jack [8], the USB
mouse was plugged into the port that just didn't like it very much [9],
this was, of course, an optical mouse that, oddly enough, was unable to
detect movement when it was placed on a slick, shiny, utterly monochrome
surface [10]...well, you get my drift.
NEVER underestimate the power of random human silliness. ALWAYS TEST
EVERYTHING.
--Sherry Shaw
[1] Okay, my nephew.
[2] I imagine he heaved a big sigh of relief.
[3] Apparently my sister.
[4] We are, however, fond of talking frogs.
[5] As in "crawl under the desk and start taking things apart."
[6] But the SO would never, never, never yank really hard on the monitor
cable without first unscrewing the screws...
[7] An easy mistake, if you plug things in with your eyes closed.
[8] See [7].
[9] For every USB gadget, there's one USB port that doesn't like it very
much.
[10] "But it's an optical mouse! It doesn't need a mousepad!"
--
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}// TenMoons
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw wrote:
[snip hilarity]
It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sherry Shaw <ten### [at] aol com> wrote:
> For every USB gadget, there's one USB port that doesn't like it very
> much.
Is that some kind of Murphy's law?-)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
