lol cant remember last time I saw such an article with so much speculation and bias. its just a bunch of anonymous quotes from some super pissed off "source"
New here? Just wait 'til a keynote speech rolls around.
While I do believe every word dealing with the internal structures and disabilities at MS, I consider the sabotage story to be extremely speculative. There are certainly several other possible explanations, including the existence of a backup that was simply not properly created, due to sheer lack of knowledge. Even rather plain Oracle databases can be quite tricky to back up properly and people without proper education should not even attempt it. They may have simply figured that it would require months/years of manual work to fix up all the references and decided to just declare defeat instead.
I think you are probably on the money Dreyfus2. In a previous life, I ran a set of data centers and one of our premier applications ran a similar application configuration as the Danger project is said to have used. We used Oracle 10g running on top of an EMC grid. During week 1 of the launch of our application, we experienced a similar failure as what is described here. We, fortunately, had 1 day old back up copies of the database and were able to reload, but I gotta tell you, it wasn't easy, it took forever to do and we had far less data, I'm sure, than what MS/Danger was probably managing.
So, yeah, I doubt the sabotage angle. I'm guessing they got bit by what has become a really big problem in the industry....maintaining a back up and recovery practice that can deal with monstrous amounts of data in a reasonable and timely fashion.
T-Mobile is now getting blamed for something which isn't their fault at all
I totally disagree with that. It was their service. If they chose to farm it out to a 3rd party, and they chose to leave it farmed out when that 3rd party got bought out my a... 4th party. Then it IS their fault. They are a service provider. They are responsible for getting service to their customers. They should have done it in-house, or find a successful company to do it.
Don't ever, EVER, EVER use a web based host as your only source of data backup. The company can have a disaster, or go out of business and your data is gone forever.
T-Mobile employs a bunch of morons to assume your data would be around forever on their servers.
I totally disagree with that. It was their service. If they chose to farm it out to a 3rd party, and they chose to leave it farmed out when that 3rd party got bought out my a... 4th party. Then it IS their fault. They are a service provider. They are responsible for getting service to their customers. They should have done it in-house, or find a successful company to do it.
That is the reason this story is significant. Up until now, IT managers have always proceeded under the assumption that choosing a Microsoft solution is unquestionably a safe practice. From now on it may not be so.
That is the reason this story is significant. Up until now, IT managers have always proceeded under the assumption that choosing a Microsoft solution is unquestionably a safe practice. From now on it may not be so.
Listen, I really don't know soup about networks and clouds and SAN,
But really, I find it hard to believe that NOBODY at MS knew anything about how to work on, repair, examine, reboot, backup or whatever a product owned by MS. I mean, NOBODY knew what to do?
I don't believe it.
Look, these MS guys must be paid a buck or two to know their craft, and there wasn't a backroom with a small engineering team that no body wanted to belong to at least keeping the operation running? Sidekick on autopilot? Nobody, but nobody, would run a business like that. Not even Bumbler, or Balmer or whatever his eggheadedness is called. It is completely beyond belief.
And the laughing Pink Lady involved? Please, this thing reads like a soap opera now.
An inside unnamed source? Who knows of details of both problems?
Xbox RROD: It's understandable maybe the first production run had some problems. No big deal. Years later brand new units out of the factory still have an usually high failure rate.
Zune Meltdown Day: Embarrassing but maybe not something that's going to hurt them long term since it was kind of a one time event.
IIS Market Share: In the last year IIS has been seeing a big drop in market share. A lot of people figured it was just the overall economy dragging down server sales but Apache has recovered, IIS has not. IIS's original market-share numbers seem to have been hugely inflated by domain parking
Windows Mobile: Complete diaster. This is a market Microsoft was years ahead of the competition about 5 years ago. Unfortunately the product you buy today is more or less the same one from 5 years ago.
Vista: Things are bad when the CEO has to admit a product was a failure.
IE: Similar situation to Windows Mobile. Microsoft just stopped improving the product for years and has fallen far behind its competition.
Netbooks: Completely missed the boat on this too. Forced to sell XP long after they had planned to simply because they had no suitable OS to run on this class of hardware. How does that even happen? Intel's plans weren't secret. Microsoft had to have known both Intel, Via and NVIDIA were working on this type of platform. What did they really expect was going to happen here?
Bing: Hasn't really gone anywhere. According to some sources is already losing market-share.
SilverLight: Total flop although a pretty good technology. Just many years late to the game.
There's a pretty good MS-focused blog called "Mini Microsoft." Lots of current and former MS employees post there about the dysfunctional culture inside the company. Much of the comments of these sources seems consistent with what I've been reading there for quite some time now.
It will be very interesting to see what the fallout from this is in the weeks ahead, especially as more and more "sources" are willing to talk. In the meantime, I haven't seen a disaster recovery effort this half-assed since Hurricane Katrina.
Microsoft has never invented anything. They bought DOS, and stole Apple GUI for Windows. Everything was either bought or copied. When investments are made out of pure greed, payback comes one way or the other.
Microsoft go into projects after another company has started making money from that product. Imitation is not good.
And why would a company with Billions of Dollars to invest, decide to make a former word-processing group manager ( Roz Ho, Office) in-charge of a phone system? Just like GM, Microsoft counts dollars only.
Feel sorry for T-Mobile customers. I can see attorneys lining up to get billions in fees from the class-action lawsuit. And I hope they get every penny Microsoft has. Steve Ballmer is an idiot. Microsoft board need to fire him and find a young Microsoft alumnae who has what it takes to revamp the company before the next disaster.
Don't ever, EVER, EVER use a web based host as your only source of data backup. The company can have a disaster, or go out of business and your data is gone forever.
T-Mobile employs a bunch of morons to assume your data would be around forever on their servers.
And people jailbreak their iPhones so they can use them on a carrier who is "superior" to at&t. Oh what tangled webs we weave.
An act of sabotage "would explain why neither party is releasing any more details: for legal reasons dealing with the ongoing investigation to find the culprit(s)," one of the sources said. Due to the way SideKick clients interact with the service, any normal failure should have resulted in only a brief outage until a replacement server could be brought up.
Does this apply to why Apple didn't acknowlede the DATA LOSS problem with Snow Vista until today when the press got wind of it.
A fabricated article that is purely a way of diverting the Sheep from Apple's problem today.
The Side Kick Data Loss is about the only thing in this entire article that can be supported by any backup data.
Apple's F up (I did listen moderator) is as bad as Microsoft's Side Kick F up.
At least Microsoft owned up to it on day 1 and T-Mobile stopped selling the problem.
Comments
This is just flat out a wrong use of the term dogfooding.
Dogfooding means using your own code to do what it's designed to do...
How about NIH (not invented here)?
I also find the 'sabotage' suggestion kind of ridiculous.
Occam's Razor applies - and there is no shortage of incompetence and stubborn arrogant stupidity at Microsoft.
A ridiculously stupid mistake, no doubt enabled by terrible management, is the most likely cause.
Honestly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for Microsoft's rampant internal disfunction to affect an external disaster of this magnitude.
Daniel does seem to have a tendency toward the dramatic, doesn't he?
IMO, its probably just a lack of trained staff that is current on non-Microsoft technology. I think you've hit the nail on the head.
John (resident RDBMS guy)
lol cant remember last time I saw such an article with so much speculation and bias. its just a bunch of anonymous quotes from some super pissed off "source"
New here?
While I do believe every word dealing with the internal structures and disabilities at MS, I consider the sabotage story to be extremely speculative. There are certainly several other possible explanations, including the existence of a backup that was simply not properly created, due to sheer lack of knowledge. Even rather plain Oracle databases can be quite tricky to back up properly and people without proper education should not even attempt it. They may have simply figured that it would require months/years of manual work to fix up all the references and decided to just declare defeat instead.
I think you are probably on the money Dreyfus2. In a previous life, I ran a set of data centers and one of our premier applications ran a similar application configuration as the Danger project is said to have used. We used Oracle 10g running on top of an EMC grid. During week 1 of the launch of our application, we experienced a similar failure as what is described here. We, fortunately, had 1 day old back up copies of the database and were able to reload, but I gotta tell you, it wasn't easy, it took forever to do and we had far less data, I'm sure, than what MS/Danger was probably managing.
So, yeah, I doubt the sabotage angle. I'm guessing they got bit by what has become a really big problem in the industry....maintaining a back up and recovery practice that can deal with monstrous amounts of data in a reasonable and timely fashion.
T-Mobile is now getting blamed for something which isn't their fault at all
I totally disagree with that. It was their service. If they chose to farm it out to a 3rd party, and they chose to leave it farmed out when that 3rd party got bought out my a... 4th party. Then it IS their fault. They are a service provider. They are responsible for getting service to their customers. They should have done it in-house, or find a successful company to do it.
T-Mobile employs a bunch of morons to assume your data would be around forever on their servers.
I totally disagree with that. It was their service. If they chose to farm it out to a 3rd party, and they chose to leave it farmed out when that 3rd party got bought out my a... 4th party. Then it IS their fault. They are a service provider. They are responsible for getting service to their customers. They should have done it in-house, or find a successful company to do it.
That is the reason this story is significant. Up until now, IT managers have always proceeded under the assumption that choosing a Microsoft solution is unquestionably a safe practice. From now on it may not be so.
That is the reason this story is significant. Up until now, IT managers have always proceeded under the assumption that choosing a Microsoft solution is unquestionably a safe practice. From now on it may not be so.
They have? Since when?
.............. the thunder
But really, I find it hard to believe that NOBODY at MS knew anything about how to work on, repair, examine, reboot, backup or whatever a product owned by MS. I mean, NOBODY knew what to do?
I don't believe it.
Look, these MS guys must be paid a buck or two to know their craft, and there wasn't a backroom with a small engineering team that no body wanted to belong to at least keeping the operation running? Sidekick on autopilot? Nobody, but nobody, would run a business like that. Not even Bumbler, or Balmer or whatever his eggheadedness is called. It is completely beyond belief.
And the laughing Pink Lady involved? Please, this thing reads like a soap opera now.
An inside unnamed source? Who knows of details of both problems?
It is so illogical, it can't buy it.
No disrespect. But it defies logic.
Xbox RROD: It's understandable maybe the first production run had some problems. No big deal. Years later brand new units out of the factory still have an usually high failure rate.
Zune Meltdown Day: Embarrassing but maybe not something that's going to hurt them long term since it was kind of a one time event.
IIS Market Share: In the last year IIS has been seeing a big drop in market share. A lot of people figured it was just the overall economy dragging down server sales but Apache has recovered, IIS has not. IIS's original market-share numbers seem to have been hugely inflated by domain parking
Windows Mobile: Complete diaster. This is a market Microsoft was years ahead of the competition about 5 years ago. Unfortunately the product you buy today is more or less the same one from 5 years ago.
Vista: Things are bad when the CEO has to admit a product was a failure.
IE: Similar situation to Windows Mobile. Microsoft just stopped improving the product for years and has fallen far behind its competition.
Netbooks: Completely missed the boat on this too. Forced to sell XP long after they had planned to simply because they had no suitable OS to run on this class of hardware. How does that even happen? Intel's plans weren't secret. Microsoft had to have known both Intel, Via and NVIDIA were working on this type of platform. What did they really expect was going to happen here?
Bing: Hasn't really gone anywhere. According to some sources is already losing market-share.
SilverLight: Total flop although a pretty good technology. Just many years late to the game.
It will be very interesting to see what the fallout from this is in the weeks ahead, especially as more and more "sources" are willing to talk. In the meantime, I haven't seen a disaster recovery effort this half-assed since Hurricane Katrina.
Microsoft go into projects after another company has started making money from that product. Imitation is not good.
And why would a company with Billions of Dollars to invest, decide to make a former word-processing group manager ( Roz Ho, Office) in-charge of a phone system? Just like GM, Microsoft counts dollars only.
Feel sorry for T-Mobile customers. I can see attorneys lining up to get billions in fees from the class-action lawsuit. And I hope they get every penny Microsoft has. Steve Ballmer is an idiot. Microsoft board need to fire him and find a young Microsoft alumnae who has what it takes to revamp the company before the next disaster.
Don't ever, EVER, EVER use a web based host as your only source of data backup. The company can have a disaster, or go out of business and your data is gone forever.
T-Mobile employs a bunch of morons to assume your data would be around forever on their servers.
And people jailbreak their iPhones so they can use them on a carrier who is "superior" to at&t. Oh what tangled webs we weave.
Hey can someone remind me what caused the collapse of Rome?
Apple's Snow Leopard Data Loss.
An act of sabotage "would explain why neither party is releasing any more details: for legal reasons dealing with the ongoing investigation to find the culprit(s)," one of the sources said. Due to the way SideKick clients interact with the service, any normal failure should have resulted in only a brief outage until a replacement server could be brought up.
Does this apply to why Apple didn't acknowlede the DATA LOSS problem with Snow Vista until today when the press got wind of it.
A fabricated article that is purely a way of diverting the Sheep from Apple's problem today.
The Side Kick Data Loss is about the only thing in this entire article that can be supported by any backup data.
Apple's F up (I did listen moderator) is as bad as Microsoft's Side Kick F up.
At least Microsoft owned up to it on day 1 and T-Mobile stopped selling the problem.
Does this apply to why Apple didn't acknowlede the DATA LOSS problem with Snow Vista until today when the press got wind of it.
A fabricated article that is purely a way of diverting the Sheep from Apple's problem today.
The Side Kick Data Loss is about the only thing in this entire article that can be supported by any backup data.
Apple's F up (I did listen moderator) is as bad as Microsoft's Side Kick F up.
At least Microsoft owned up to it on day 1 and T-Mobile stopped selling the problem.