Rocky Pufflenuggets

I've been dealing with a Vendor at work for the last several months and the more I deal with them the more I am amazed that they are in business. Not just in business - these dingleberries have managed to get a multi-million dollar contract for their incredibly lousy software. I mean we'd be better off without it. It's almost like a virus... no, a virus is successful... this is more like an albatross around our necks. It's crazy.

Anyway... the latest is that they are shipping this software component for linux and solaris and it's got basic start/stop scripts - pretty routine stuff. The problem is in the start and stop scripts. I suppose it's in their code as well, but I'll give them a pass on that because they wrote the start and stop scripts to keep the software out of a 'bad' state.

Here's what's happening: you start this component and for some reason it gets to thinking that it's stopped and so it tries to restart itself. The problem is that it hasn't really stopped. It's still running. Given that it's listening on a socket, when it 'restarts' it sees that it can't get the socket and not only fails on the restart, it takes the running instance with it as well.

This last little bit can be avoided easily enough by making the app see if anything is listening on the socket before trying to set up the listener, but that's something that not everyone would think to do, and it's a little more than I'd expect from most vendors. But the script thinking that the app died when it hasn't is a serious lame brain duh.

I went into the script, spent about 15 mins clearing out a bunch of the junk and putting in a simple restart sequence that I've used in a lot of linux services I've built and started that puppy up. Previously, I couldn't get the component to stay up for 8 hours, and now we're well past three times that.

Their basic components are decent - not worth the money, but they aren't horrible, either. But the scripts are crap. And let's not even get into the tech support that's half way around the globe. After three days and countless explanations of the problem from me to them, the best their tech support could say was You must have started two - stop them all and start just one and the problem will go away.

Now, if I was a junior dufus just completing the How to Program in 24 Minutes book, then I'd see that it might be good advice. But since my first email pointed out that I had done just that, this was not the most helpful of advice. Then, they had their guru that's in town have a look at it, and he took the changes I made to the script and said "Well... I don't really know the linux scripts, but the guys back in Greater Gufendorf will have a look."

Yeah right. I've got stability and as long as I'm forced to use this garbage, at least I can make it decent enough to use. Holy Cow! What a bunch of goobers.

OK, it's not often I look at people and wonder what they have been drinking, but I just had a talk with someone I looked upon as having both feet on the ground, and I realized that the combination of denial, rationalization, and schedules are a deadly combination and my company is standing to loose a boatload of dough because of it.

If a system technically works, but takes every person on staff to support it - is it really working? Some would say "Certainly." - after all, it is working. But if there are other things to do and the staff can't get to them because of the constant attention required to keep even the simplest of things running, then you've got something running, but it's the only thing that is. Maybe that's a 'success' in someone's book, but in mine it's a disaster.

But I've come to realize that the people here looking at the schedules aren't really looking at the cost. They're only looking to cover their behinds and make sure that "their part" is done on-time - regardless of the cost. I guess if that's what you've got to do, then do it. But it seems like more than a little bit of a waste to do that. How are you going to look at yourself in the mirror when someone eventually asks (and they always eventually ask) So could no one see that this was headed towards an untenable position?

"Um..." is a bad answer to that question. If you could have seen, you should have seen. And said something. But that's not how things are working in my company now. Those who have tried to say something are given the lines "Hey, we all had a chance to say something, but that time has passed, and now we're stuck with it." Horse Poo! I wasn't given a chance to say anything, for if I had, I'd have said something.

No... it's "I had the chance to say something, and now we're stuck with it." That's a lot closer to the truth. But even that's not right on the money. This is a colossal waste of time and people and while it may "work", it'll never "work well enough" to justify the cost in dollars and time.

You've just got to wonder why on earth they are continuing to forge ahead and waste even more time and money. I guess they are still in the Emperor's New Clothes bit... they think we just don't see the fancy new threads, and it'll look great when we get this last little bit in place. Yup... a dangerous trifecta.

I was sitting in this meeting yesterday and realized that there were four managers for the two people actually doing the work. All the managers individually said "Keep me in the loop" even though by the org chart, only one was the manager of the guys actually doing the work. Work has become Office Space - four managers for a project with two guys doing all the work.

I came to work at this place because it was lean. Only a few levels of people from the bottom to the top. Now it's been morphed into some 'classic' textbook example of an organization (on paper), and a monster in real life. I'm about to send this into the Daily WTF and see if they post it - they may not because it's almost too hard to believe.

I now know why all those guys in the WTFs are saying they left the place at the end of their story. This has already passed "funny if it weren't so sad", and is quickly approaching "a death march to match WWII". Forget this being a 'nice' place to work... about the only nice thing about it is the time I get to do the actual work - which could be done anywhere. Nope, this place is in the dumpster.

I wonder if they'll be able to pull out... and if I'll be around to see it.

I was talking to my good friend Tennessee again today at lunch, and we started talking about disaster projects that we've both been involved in at the jobs we've had. It's funny some of the things a project manager will do to try and make something work. It's almost like the project is started for the good of the business, but then takes on a life of it's own and must be finished no matter what the damage to the business. It's really like a child growing up to be a shooter in a bell tower. Something went horribly wrong - even with the best of intentions.

There have been books written about this problem... degrees handed out on the study of it... and millions and millions of dollars wasted because of it. But what this lead to in our conversation was the realization that many people leave a job not because of the day-to-day stuff, but because of one of these Death-March Projects.

You're pretty happy in the job, things are going pretty well - ups and downs, just like everything else, and then comes the Death-March. You start working on it - maybe not yet realizing it will become horrific, maybe it hasn't yet gotten to that point, but some point along the way it becomes that, and you start telling yourself "Hey, this can't last forever, it's going to get better." But it never does.

You go one like this for months... each week saying "Hey, it's gone on this long, it can't take too much longer", and yet each time you have a status meeting, you realize that it isn't getting any better. The specs change... or you find other dependencies... or someone says this needs to be done as well. All these things are reasonable, but it's the accumulation of these on a single project that is a killer.

Then you start to think it's never going to end. You get depressed about coming to work, so you put forth less effort, and this makes things take even longer. Pretty soon you try to think of things to do to keep from doing the Killer Project. But it's coming back to ge you... you can't run away.

Then you start to think that the only way you'll be free of this is to leave. You find it's a happy thought. You actually look forward to it. You interview and you're gone. Free at last, thank goodness!

I wonder why management doesn't realize all this? I'm sure they remember this, but they seem to forget it, or be oblivious to it once they get the nice office. Seems silly, really. But that's why Dilbert is so funny.

So I heard today that Mike Lee is leaving Delicious Monster. I can certainly understand his position. He started working for Wil to learn how to code Mac OS X at the feet of a true master. Excellent story, worth reading. But I'm not talking about Mike's story... I'm looking at the fact that the title of Mike's weblog is a word that I wouldn't say in front of my mother, but he does, and has every right to do so.

Free Speech. That's one of those catchy phrases that we throw around a lot. We're all supposed to have it, and as long as you're not hurting anyone with your free speech, someone shouldn't tell you you can stop what you're saying. Take out the slander... take out the mean-spirited remarks... your personal experiences and beliefs are yours, and if you want to express yourself you should have that right.

I say should, because in many places - most notably Big Business, you don't have that right.

I was talking to my friend Tennessee the other day and he was telling me about this CNN reporter that was fired for having said "certain things" on his weblog. Fired. I read the guy's post about his firing. It's really rather amazing. I mean, I've gotten into this issue with my friend Dante several times. Dante owns a little company - nothing that'll change the world of finance, but it's his little web shop and it's something he takes a lot of pride in.

Anyway, Dante always says that he works in an At Will State - meaning that he can fire anyone for any reason - so long as it's not discrimination. So if this person is being a slug and doing nothing - Dante can (and has) fired them. He can hire and fire at will. And I can understand why - it's his company, his name on the door, and his reputation.

But where does that end?

If you look at the CNN producer, he's writing about the industry he's in. OK, I still think they went overboard, but maybe. But what if it was one of the train conductors that I see every day on the trains I ride? What if one of them wanted to write about computers and the jerks he meets on the job and at the Big Box store down the street? Should the train company be able to fire him for that?

Where does personal time and personal feelings interfere with the job? And does this effect his job at all? The CNN producer was fired for something that had nothing to do with his job. Nothing at all. Dante doesn't fire people for what they do on the weekend, he's only fired people for what they do during the workday. And that should be the litmus test.

If the writing is materially effecting the job, then it becomes a work issue. If not, then it's personal.

I'm not silly enough to think that's the way it really works, but I do think that it should work that way. Big Business has the money and the lawyers on their side. People should have the right to say what they think and feel as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. And so long as the company isn't hurt, then employees should have the right to say what they think.

After all... Free Speech isn't the same as "Free Speech that offends no one"... we do not have the right to be free of offense. I don't have to like what you say, but that doesn't give me the right to make you stop.

This is going to change someday. Wait and see.