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



> >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.
> 
> And now, Mike, what are your predictions for the Fed's Y2k readiness?
> (Personally, I'm just praying that the IRS will go down in flames.)


Brett would have more up-to-date information on that.. i recall him
sending me a quick summary of the report by the Congressional
Committee On Y2K Worrying a while back.   historically, the IRS has a
fairly weak record dealing with changing technology.

a few years back, they decided they needed a sweeping upgrade in
computer systems, and the project got mired in infighting and failed
planning.   they spent several months and quite a lot of money
bickering about options, and when the project came up for review, had
absolutely nothing to show for it.

the first year they supported electronic filing, fraud was rampant.  
people filed the same returns as many as a hundred times, and got paid
on all of them. returns were filed on individuals who didn't exist,
and those got paid.   due to the nature of the system, most of the
cases were untraceable.


the bottom line, which many people apparently don't realize, is that
computers are nothing but tools.   they're neither useful nor useless
by themselves.   the thing which is valuable is the system people use
to handle information, and that's strictly a matter of squishyware.
any piece of technology that makes it easier for people to handle
information effectively, as defined by the goals of the system they
use, is useful.. whether it's cutting-edge software or a paperweight.

every object has a set of what are called 'affordances', which relate
to its physical (or in the case of software, logical) characteristics.
affordance is kind of an abstract concept, basically meaning, "useful
in situations which require these characteristics."   doorknobs, pool
balls, and a well-designed mouse (the computer input device) are all
different shapes, but they all afford being held in the palm of the
hand.

software systems have affordances too, and people mistakenly describe
them by saying "program X lets you do Y", which is a lie.   the
correct version is "program X can be useful when you do Y".   to
emphasize the difference between those, subsitiute "GrafikWiz" for
"program X", and "paint like a pro" for "Y".   the first version,
which is standard marketing copy, implies that the product grants the
user new abilities.   the second version only says the product
supports abilities the user already has.

too many people buy software based on the assumption implied by the
marketing copy.   they think buying the software which supports a
given skill is a shortcut to acquiring the skill itself.   software
vendors encourage that mistake by pushing garbage like pre-built
templates, 'wizards', and other gimmicks which say "click here for a
masterpiece".


buying and installing software are reasonably easy tasks.   there are
certainly compatability issues to deal with, but the process is
basically mechanical in the long run.   training the users to
understand the new software, and to incorporate it in their existing
system of information handling is much harder, and much slower.   it's
also much more important.

anyone who buys software because they think it's faster and easier
than learning to do the work for themselves is just wasting time and
money.



> > mike (ten days, four minutes, twelve seconds, and counting) stone.
> > 
> 
> just curious, what are you counting?   not Christmas, not last day 
> at work, hmm?  maybe it is Christmas?


the amount of time officially on the clock until my contract ends, and
i can go back to freelancing full-time.