Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help

SystemsManagement

See also SteveSmith, SystemsUpgradeManagement, DesksRoomsAndEquipment

I'll share one more fascination with you despite it being hard to limit myself to just three. I'm fascinated with Systems Management. One puzzle that is tugging on me is when to apply software maintenance or upgrades. I?m seeing a lot of companies apply updates to systems without any controls. Today?s systems seem to me to be fragile. They look like they are held together with bubble gum and bailing wire. I would love to talk with you about your beliefs about when to apply maintenance and upgrades to software. [From SteveSmith's page.]

Warning! Technical deep diving follows! You have been warned!
Martin Fowler and Kent Beck made an interesting assertion in Refactoring and/or Extreme Programming [I forget which] that they would never have the courage to refactor without the built-in unit tests that show before & after equivalence. I think we need to ship installation verification unit tests with products, components, etc.

Perhaps it's time to drop the distinction between "debug version" and "production version" -- you know: it wouldn't be optimized enough Unlike C and C++, Java lacks compile-time #ifdef capability, so the unit tests have to ship unless someone externally preprocesses the sources. Java 1.4 includes execution-time debug switching - customers can invoke this in aid of tech support.

BobLee 2002.04.18

In regards to Windows Installations / Registry:
  • It's just 1-deep (history is lost with updates) "What was this when it worked last Tuesday?"
  • There's no "undo", no trial-mode, no rollback.

One of the products that lets you run Microsoft Windows on MacOS -- Virtual PC -- also advertises an "undo" featuref for installations. If you install and find you want to un-install, you can revert your system image back to the pre-install state instead of running the un-installer.

It's also real easy to back up your system image -- just quit Virtual PC, and copy its "C Drive" file.

As long as you don't need to run specific PC-only hardware, and don't need blazing speed, a Power Macintosh is often a better way to run one (or several) versions of Windows than an intel box. --KeithRay

Yes, I've tried this and it works - to the exent that any Windows product works. I used Virtual PC successfully for some time, though not for the past year or so because there just wasn't any Windows software I wanted to run on my Mac.

Another thought: One reason we have such trouble with systems management is because of the tradeoff between the benefits of keeping up with the latest OS (and other updates) and the penalties of being the first on your block to try it. (The Edsel Edict) If releases were much more reliable, people might keep much more current, but given the penchant of vendors to use us as crypto-beta testers, discretion is the best way, even with the penalties for not keeping "up to date." - JerryWeinberg 2002.06.30

Keith

I recently tripped on :
a Power Macintosh is often a better way to run one (or several) versions of Windows than an intel box
I've always thought that a Mac OS is a better way to run a "windows" environment :)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. - BeckyWinant 2002.08.27

In re-reading Steve's original statement, I'd like to explore the decision making process that people go through when making choices about software upgrades. Why do controls seem to be low on the priority list? Has anyone been privy to these sorts of decisions?

- BeckyWinant 2002.08.27

Becky, with the current structural problems, I submit that controls are simply not available with most upgrades - the upgrades, once started are not mechanically reversible, so once started, an upgrade is like a blind ride along a cliff.

Corporate Scenarios:

  • One can't test all configurations and interactions before committing, and having "tested", the only recourse to going forward is to fully restore a backup image per system image.
  • When some persons/groups on the intranet upgrades a groupware application to a newer (downward incompatable) version, all others are compelled to upgrade to be able to open documents. This also happens in response to customers upgrading.
  • Controlling the above may or may not be cost-effective, if control were achievable.

--BobLee 2002.08.27

Bob,

Yes, I can see how some situations are harder to test. Web applications being different than financial systems and yet different than embedded controls.

I guess it gets back to cost vs. risk.

I did do some consulting at an organization where they tried to regulate what everyone had on their PCs. Peple weren't happy to be downgraded to Windows 95 and soon variations spread again. Hard to control people's tools.

- BeckyWinant 2002.08.28

For a discussion of physical equipment (or lack) affecting productivity:

Updated: Saturday, August 31, 2002