Subject: Re: Congressional Exchange Server Crashes, ummm, Loops



>rhetorical question:
>
>who recommended NT 4 and MSFT Exchange for Congress *anyway*??? don't these
>guys know about compliant POP mail systems?


as i understand it, they wanted not only the capacity for email, but
also the other features Exchange offers, like file sharing and directory
synchronization.   as for who made the decision, my guess is that the
blame ultimately goes back to the least technical people in the whole
scenario, the users themselves.   the basic sequence of logic (sic) runs
like so:


    1.  the users see software that does something neat.

    2.  the users tell the tech staff they want that software.

    3.  the tech staff identify weaknesses in the software which
        make it unsuitable for the environment where it will be
        installed.

    4.  the tech staff search for an alternative product which
        has a comparable feature set, and also fits the install
        environment.

    5.  assuming such an alternative is found, the tech staff 
        submit a report recommending that instead of what was
        first proposed.

    6.  the report is reviewed by someone for who considers the 
        laws of physics optional, preferring to worship at the 
        shrine of "user expectations".

    7.  if going with the alternative requires any demonstration
        of sentience on the part of the users, the recommendation
        will be denied.

    8.  eventually, whatever product requires the least amount
        of short-term effort on the part of the users will be 
        installed.

    9.  any challenge to user expectations at the time of 
        installation will be blamed on the tech staff.

    10. any failure of the product to support the same feature 
        set as vaporware in the latest PC mags (TIME, People, 
        Business Week, Wall Street Journal) will be blamed on 
        the tech staff.

    11. any product failure not immediately attributable to an
        act of God devastating enough to render the users 
        unable to drive to work and/or use their telephone 
        will be blamed on the tech staff.



in support of this hypothesis, i submit the fact that they were running
Exchange 4.   the current version is 5.5, and the bug which crashed the
servers was a known issue for that release.   resistance to upgrades is
a sign of an environment where the users resist change.


mike (ten days, four minutes, twelve seconds, and counting) stone.