MS Says All Sidekick Data Recovered, But Damage Done 279
nandemoari writes "T-Mobile is taking a huge financial hit in the fallout over the Sidekick data loss. But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation. As reported earlier this week, the phone network had to admit that some users' data had been permanently lost due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger. The handset works by storing data such as contacts and appointments on a remote computer rather than on the phone itself. BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data, but a minority are still affected (out of 1 million subscribers). Amidst this, Microsoft appears not to have suffered any financial damage. However, it seems certain that its relationship with T-Mobile will have taken a major knock. The software giant is also the target of some very bad publicity as critics question how on earth it failed to put in place adequate back-ups of the data. That could seriously damage the potential success of the firm's other 'cloud computing' plans, such as web-only editions of Office."
Cloud computer (Score:4, Funny)
Not just buzz, it's the future bro.
Re:Cloud computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps for people who don't care about their data... Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party. I'll keep my data in-house thank you.
Re:Cloud computer (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps for people who don't care about their data... Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party. I'll keep my data in-house thank you.
If you can setup offline synchronization and data encryption, there is no reason to not use cloud computing.
If your provider does not support this, then it's time to change it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One reason not to use Cloud Computing is that I can avoid Ribbon Interface crapola (as was in Office 2007), and just keep using my older software. Or I can ignore Vista/ME and just keep using older XP/98 operating systems. With cloud computing using older programs won't be an option, because it will be forced upon you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You might want to check it out sometime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Looms = non cloud computing.
That is a bit of a stretch.
I think ppl can use OSS & Linux and use VPN's like Open VPN and
say that whatever crap comes out of M$ is not worth using.
There are already DNS issues, and other Internet Infrastructure issues
and relying on a system that is burdened with massive spam, torrent,
and email data is a recipe for disaster.
Do not talk to me about Telcos taking care of that.
Their track records are WELL known.
http://www.tispa.org/node/14 [tispa.org]
$200 billion in tax payer money pissed a
Re:Cloud computer (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you missed the point:
- With software you own, you can ignore Microsoft's mistakes (Office2007, Vista) and continue using their older products (Office2003 or 97, XP).
- With software you rent off the internet (cloud), the bad ideas are shoved upon you whether you like them or not.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If your provider does not support synchronization and data encryption, then it's time to change it.
Well I could but my local government gave Comcast a monopoly. There is nothing else to "change" to. Thanks politicians for taking-away my freedom of choice. I'm losing my liberty.
Re:Cloud computer (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can setup offline synchronization and data encryption, there is no reason to not use cloud computing.
All a local backup will give me is reliability.
If I can't encrypt my data on their servers I don't really have privacy or security.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps for people who don't care about their data... Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party. I'll keep my data in-house thank you.
Dude, organizations use third party data centers (or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party) all the time w/o a glitch. Unless you are a software giant (like ebay or amazon) that can build your own data center, or are a minor/midsize operation (or are just a guy with a home computer), you will inevitably have a large part of your stuff either running on someone else's infrastructure or having it operate on someone else's watch.
It is done all the time, by many, for years now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ya, "all the time". I worked for a company that outsourced its data center to IBM. They "accidentially" deleted our Oracle database - twice - and it often took two weeks to get things simple done on the servers, like add an entry added to the /etc/hosts file. I was hired as the senior Unix SA and we purchased our own equipment ($2 million worth), brought th
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cloud computer (Score:5, Funny)
Storing all of your data and the lion's share of your processing on a remote machine, with only the bare minimum stored and run locally? Sounds a lot more like the past to me.
Microsoft and Danger (Score:5, Interesting)
But the damage is not limited to Microsoft's reputation, the damage extends to the concept behind 'cloud computing', whatever that is. I think it is safe to say that Microsoft will recover from this incident, after all, it's record is already pretty suspect, but cloud computing will have this example hanging over it from now on.
I doubt that people will take this as a lesson that Microsoft is not to be trusted or believed since they are the public face of computing, but that computing generally, and 'cloud computing' is what's untrustworthy. Microsoft can abandon this particular project, coin a new term to replace 'cloud computing', and move on.
This is an opening for Google or other competitors. Will they step up and displace Microsoft as the public face of computing? We can be rid of monolithic operating systems if someone can make a system that boots a minimal browser/front-end that connects to the internet. A combination of BIOS and replaceable flash drive. Sell flash drives with the kernel and the drivers for the display/keyboard and network interface.
Re: (Score:2)
This just in:
Microsoft's share of the OS market has dropped from 89.5% to 89.4%. MSFT stock plummets; the NASDAQ fell. (I kid.) People tend to have short memories. They've already forgotten the mess that was the DTV Coupon program, prevented many from using the coupons to get DTV converter boxes, and affected ~50 million Americans. This Sidekick story about a million users almost-losing data will be forgotten by next week.
As Rob Pegoraro of The WaPo points out (Score:5, Informative)
here [washingtonpost.com] the damage to T-Mobile is compounded by their tone deafness on customer support.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why you have press people (Score:5, Informative)
Well, to be fair, whoever said 'All data is lost' to the press should have been dragged out back and shot. They should have said 'We're looking in to how long it will take to restore data, and to see if there will be any problems' and left it at that for a few days.
Re: (Score:2)
Still a sad state it is taking so long.
Re:This is why you have press people (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of my point. As was pointed out in the original /. discussion, the data wasn't 'lost' per se; it was pointed out even then that lots of it could likely be recovered, though it would be very inconvenient and possibly not worth the effort.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft is often the first guinea pig for Microsoft software, and frankly, isn't that how it should be? If they aren't willing to run IIS 7.5 on their homepage, why should anyone else? If they aren't using SQL Server as their data warehouse application, why should anyone else? If they don't trust Hyper-V R2 to run virtual machines...
Don't blame t-mobile for Danger's failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But Johnny SidekickUser can't contract directly with Danger, he has to deal with T-Mobile. T-Mobile has some responsibility for making sure the service they're reselling operates as advertised. This shouldn't be a "best-effort" service.
It was T-Mobile's name on the contract and device. (Score:5, Informative)
If T-Mobile plasters their name on the contract, the device, and the service, then the buck stops there. Period. Internally, T-Mobile can choose to blame the Easter Bunny if they like, but ultimately, it was T-Mobile's responsibility to ensure that their customer's data was properly protected. This absolutely could have been prevented by audits of Microsofts/Danger's operations, checks of backup integrity, tighter contracts, etc. T-Mobile can go try and sue MS to get their damages back, but in the meantime, customers can, and should, be blaming (and suing) T-Mobile.
SirWired
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think that their name would at least give customers pause as to the safety of their data... (Or, perhaps their name gives them some legal wiggle room?)
Re:Don't blame t-mobile for Danger's failure (Score:5, Insightful)
T-Mobile and Danger were partners long before Microsoft ate Danger up. It's not like Microsoft had a history of failed backups and horrible transitions.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except Hotmail
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sure, they've got a history of horrible transitions. HotMail comes to mind immediately.
See "dogfooding" within the following:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/10/12/microsofts_sidekick_pink_problems_blamed_on_dogfooding_and_sabotage.html [appleinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Could very well be, but then what of the following, taken from David Brooks' writeup describing the HotMail conversion (emphasis added)
Re:Don't blame t-mobile for Danger's failure (Score:4, Informative)
SuiteSisterMary's post [slashdot.org] was probably wrong about who should be "shot" but right about the releases.
Hey, now, let's not fight over who should be shot. There's plenty of bullets for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T says thanks (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft's reputation (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, this is a terrible blow for Microsoft. This might make people think that they produce unreliable products!
Re: (Score:3)
T-Mobile, who only sells this Microsoft stuff, on hearing of the problems, immediately issues a statement & offers advice & compensation.
Microsoft, who caused this, "Not me Guv! 'onest!"
Re: (Score:3)
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Microsoft's reputation (Score:4, Insightful)
The "Pink" project was a Microsoft creation based on their technology, NOT a Danger product. It was the brainchild of Microsoft's Roz Ho. Microsoft may have bought a terribly run company, but that happens all the time in the real world. After a year and a half under the leadership of Microsoft, problems can no longer be blamed on the previous company's leadership. Most of those people don't even work there anymore. It's all on Microsoft's head.
The problem is not that the Danger division is run like a separate company. The problem is that every little division of Microsoft is run like a separate company. That's their biggest flaw, and they really need to get an effective leader (as in replace Steve Ballmer) who isn't afraid to fire anyone who is more concerned about protecting his/her own empire than with the good of the company. That pretty much means replacing large swaths of the management hierarchy. That's the only thing that will save Microsoft from eventual total failure. That or a huge government bailout in twenty years for being "too big to fail".
Backups are unimportant; restore is everything. (Score:5, Insightful)
Worth repeating every time. Nobody cares if you back up your data. Take a blank server; take whatever it is that you store offsite. If you can turn the blank server into your production system then you are fine. If you can't then your strategy is failing. If you never try it then you are an amateur.
This incompetence is something far beyond serious for MS. T-mobile is a much bigger customer than almost anyone short of vodafone can ever hope to be. MS have been moving strategically into hosting servers such as exchange for many customers. If you're a CEO you should be calling your CIO in and asking him when he plans to be free of MS services. If you are a CIO you want to be able to answer "there's nothing business critical relying on MS services" by the time that meeting comes.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're overstating your point. Unless you are saving your data in a truly useless format, having a practiced procedure for getting that data back into production only lets you get the data back up faster. We have one backup system in particular at my office - although we have never built a production machine from it, we do (manually and automatically) test the data to ensure that everything from production made it in. Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy? Sure. Is it fair to say that nob
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know of situations where it turned out that the heads in the backup system were misaligned and so the tape only read back on the system they were backing up on
As I recall, this was essentially true all the time for DDS-3 drives. Remember kids, Just Say No to helical tape.
Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, he's NOT overstating his point. Unless your data is a bunch of flat text files or Word documents or whatever the restore is a critically difficult process.
Enterprise data like this often has never been in a flat or "dead" state since the original implementation. Complex applications frequently have delicate interactions between the live application and the contents of the database at any particular moment. Having a bunch of database tables on a tape somewhere doesn't do you much good if the application can't actually start from the state contained on the tapes, and it's a two-week manual process to clean up the issues.
If you can afford a "slow and sketchy" restore process, or your application is just not that complicated, then by all means, don't test your restore, and don't create a department with responsibility for backups and nothing else. It's still amateur work.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you're overstating your point. Unless you are saving your data in a truly useless format, having a practiced procedure for getting that data back into production only lets you get the data back up faster. We have one backup system in particular at my office - although we have never built a production machine from it, we do (manually and automatically) test the data to ensure that everything from production made it in. Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy? Sure. Is it fair to say that nobody will care if we have the data backed up? No.
The point isn't to have a practiced procedure that your technicians can run through with their eyes closed... The point is to actually test your backups and know whether they are working, whether the data is usable, and whether it is possible to get a production server up and running from that backup.
Most backups aren't going to be as easy as insert tape, walk away, come back to a working production server an hour later. Most backups will involve some kind of re-pointing or importing or configuration or w
Re: (Score:2)
Will restoring that data be slow and sketchy? Sure.
So what is supposed to happen while "slow and sketchy" is taking place? All business stops?
And what is meant by "sketchy"? "Sketchy" is not the adjective I like to hear used to describe the accuracy and consistency of my data.
Even if you're just backing up a bunch of flat files, how do you know that your backup is a consistent snapshot? Or are you OK with your data just being invalid in unpredictable ways?
Where are your backups located? On-site? I sure hope not. Fires happen. Floods happen.
Backups an
Re:Backups are unimportant; restore is everything. (Score:4, Interesting)
This incompetence is something far beyond serious for MS. T-mobile is a much bigger customer than almost anyone short of vodafone can ever hope to be. MS have been moving strategically into hosting servers such as exchange for many customers. If you're a CEO you should be calling your CIO in and asking him when he plans to be free of MS services. If you are a CIO you want to be able to answer "there's nothing business critical relying on MS services" by the time that meeting comes.
Hehe. I raised this issue when this broke. We have a huge amount of critical data outsourced to a hosting company. I sent this fiasco up the food chain asking what is our backup strategy should this happen to our host.
I got back some pablum about "well, they have 2 geographically separate datacenters, blah blah blah" from the guy who administers the contract.
Maybe they did at one point but I know the folks we use fired most of their devs, including the lead developer, back in March as a cost cutting measure. and I wouldn't be surprised if one of the "two data centers" disappeared along with the developers. Regardless, no one on our end seems to be concerned and no one is taking any precautions (like local backups.)
Maybe one day I'll get to say, "I Told You So."
Re: (Score:2)
The issue has nothing to do with Microsoft. The issue has to do with a failure by T-Mobile with a vendor (that happens to be Microsoft). How T-Mobile ever approved a contract with the appropriate backup software, hardware, DR plan and testing is the bigger issue. Microsoft likely provided exactly the level of support that T-Mobile paid for, and I'm willing to bet that T-Mobile balked at these proposed charges from Microsoft and went with the cheaper option without the backup expenses. If your a CIO you use
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your admin team or hosting company should be able to tell you what is involved to get from your backup to a fully functioning production system (a truly well thought-out backup scheme will have a step-by-step recovery checklist), and they should be able to provide a worst-case data loss estimate based on your backup scheme.
This isn't a failure of "cloud compu
Not likely (Score:4, Interesting)
"That could seriously damage the potential success of the firm's other 'cloud computing' plans, such as web-only editions of Office."
I can't tell whether this is spin put on the summary by the submitter or some other third-party (because we all know submitters are, absent any editorial constraints on /., free to post what they want without attribution). That said, it's highly unlikely Microsoft will suffer from this. Wisely, they offloaded all responsibility the moment they created this entity known as Danger. They've effectively washed their hands of the entire affair, because it wasn't really a Microsoft problem in the end, but a problem with an affiliated company.
It is simply wishful thinking on the part of the submitter (or whomever) that Microsoft will be tainted by this deal. In all likelihood, Microsoft will simply walk away from their relationship with Danger, and it will be business again as usual.
Re:Not likely (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that people make decisions and don't really care if something is just "affiliated".
Microsoft and Google bid for the "cloud computing" "office" contract at some company. Do you really think Google isn't going to mention, with a bunch of references, this screw up?
With quotes from press releases like:
in big bold blocks.
said it before and will say it again (Score:5, Interesting)
The worrisome part about cloud computing is putting your trust in someone else's hands. But keeping your backup process internal to the company is no panacea either. Bad management practice is what led to the cloud screwing up, just like bad management practice led to in-house data losses at other companies.
How many of you guys generate your own power 24x7? C'mon, you're really going to place the face of your business in the hands of people running off the wire? Wire power. Feh! That wire could be going anywhere. Real men run their own generators!
Sounds silly, right? Of course, that's only because we're used to power companies running like utilities, government-regulated monopolies allowed to exclusively service the public with a healthy, dependable profit in return for low rates and universal service. In such an environment having your own generators for anything other than emergencies is paranoia. But wow, you start deregulating things and let the businessmen go nuts and it almost seems like you'd have to.
The real question with cloud computing is whether the companies are going to operate in a fashion that brings to mind steady, sober, dependable service like a local utility, like a giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns, or like a fly-by-night dotcom. My personal opinion is that I don't trust these fuckers. Current company's situation is that we have a major software product we run our business on and the publisher got gobbled up by a bigger company and that company got gobbled up by a bigger one. The big company has decided to discontinue the product and have been slowly dismantling the team that supports it. We know we're going to have to make a jump eventually but the conglomerate could pull the plug tomorrow and we'd still be in operation. If it was a cloud app, we could be dead in the water.
Re: (Score:2)
The worrisome part about cloud computing is putting your trust in someone else's hands.
I don't get this part. (privacy issues aside) Cloud services aren't generally touted as incremental backup solutions.
I mean its the same exact thing as running a RAID server in your own home. Simply having a system that is designed to mitigate downtime a backup system does not make.
Even if you have a system that separates data across multiple disks in different locations, user error or a database bug could wipe the "live
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually my employer does in fact generate their own power. Or rather, they can. Our data center runs off a UPS bank, which is fed by the mains feed and a generator. If mains power fails, the UPS has enough capacity to keep the data center running until the genny starts up and starts supplying power. It's more convenient to run off mains, but we don't assume mains power is totally reliable (or even completely clean, the UPS bank filters and stabilizes it).
And yes, they run monthly tests of the genny t
Re:said it before and will say it again (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, what fantasyland are your utilities located in? I wanna move there! In my experience, utilities *are* "giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns".
Re: (Score:2)
Man, what fantasyland are your utilities located in? I wanna move there! In my experience, utilities *are* "giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns".
I live under the benevolent heel of LIPA, so I'll add "unreliable" and "dirty" to your list of adjectives...
Re: (Score:2)
If you trusted the power company that much, you wouldn't have UPS and power generators in data centers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually don't trust the power company to provide electricity 24x7, because they don't... at least not reliably. In addition to a 3-day outage in the middle of winter several years ago, I lose power for more than a minute - often several hours - at least half a dozen times each year. So yes: in addition to a UPS for my TiVo and other electronic essentials, I have a generator big enough to run my servers, router, etc. as long as I keep feeding it gasoline.
What third-world country do I live in tha
Stormy weather (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
but that can work in your favor!
'talk' about sensitive stuff in the middle of a file upload (so to speak) and you'll be sniffed.
then simply file a FOIA to get your data back from the government 'backups'.
(yeah, right.)
Critics only *NOW* questioning MS's competence?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Years of BSODS.
Years of viruses.
Years of trojans.
Yet THIS "damages Microsoft's reputation"?!?!?!
Re: (Score:3)
One thing and another (Score:5, Insightful)
What we see here is a small device storing it's data remotely and I wonder why.
Considering how cheap a couple of GB of memory are and how precious wireless bandwidth is this can mean only one thing, having and thus exploiting that data is worth more than the cost of the bandwidth.
Re:One thing and another (Score:4, Insightful)
Correction: locking the data into a closed service from which you cannot easily retrieve it, making you permanently dependent on their service for your contact information is worth more than the cost of the bandwidth. It's the Facebook of the cell phone world.
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe that customers care if your services providers have problems. They have an agreement with you, not your providers.
All data recovered? (Score:4, Interesting)
So here's what confuses me... "BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data, but a minority are still affected." If all the data has been recovered, wouldn't NO ONE still be affected? I mean... being affected by this means your data was lost in such a way that it couldn't be recovered. So...
Danger? Really? (Score:4, Funny)
Wrong wrong wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
"But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation."
Microsoft bears ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MISTAKE!
They own Danger and they run the data center that stores the data!
It was their fault 100%.
Not So Fast (Score:5, Informative)
I have a Sidekick.
I still, a week later, can't get e-mail on it. My contacts were never lost, but the damn thing still doesn't work! I'm getting tired of waiting.
My contract is up in August and I'm going to find a phone that stores everything locally AND a new provider. I have learned my lesson.
Sounds like JournalSpace (Score:3, Insightful)
> "The outage was caused by a system failure that created data loss in the core database and the back up,"
> [Microsoft Corporate Vice President Roz Ho] wrote in an open letter to customers.
It sounds like their "backup" was a replica on another connected server.
No actual offline backups at all.
When JournalSpace was destroyed, one SlashDot thread was "Why Mirroring Is Not a Backup Solution".
My favorite comment was by JoelKatz:
>> The whole point of a backup is that it is *stable*. Neither copy is stable, so there is no ... if the active copy of the data is corrupted, there is no backup.
>> "backup on the hardware level". There are two active systems.
>>
>> If you cannot restore an accidentally-deleted file from it, it's not a backup.
>>
Reputation? (Score:3, Insightful)
"But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation"
Just out of curiosity, what reputation might that be? :-)
Long term damage done (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is more like 1984 scandal of Amazon Kindle, it will have long time impact on cloud computing and the general direction of things to come.
Even if you invent a system about e-ink/store tomorrow which has NOTHING to do with Amazon Kindle, you will still be asked "but will you delete my books remotely?". Just like some dead tech acquired by MS and not managed well will cost even IBM Mainframe dept. sales.
If one is a hopeless conspiracy theorist, he can easily suggest MS did it on purpose to lower general public trust to cloud which they have almost nothing. Cloud is all open source empire right now, Apache Hadoop etc. are being talked about, not some MS enterprise server or technology.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Now that I said it, it doesn't seem unpossible. I better call Hollywood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really want a conspiracy theory, toss in that another factor Microsoft considered was that Danger uses Unix servers, Oracle RAC, Java apps, and Hitachi SAN software. No sign of any significant Windows technology. So, they purposefully destroy the data. That not only hits T-Mobile, per your proposed conspiracy theory, but also hits Oracle and Unix and Java, and it shakes confidence in the whose Cloud idea.
Google and Amazon are ahead of MS right now in Cloud stuff, so if Microsoft can throw a delay int
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's up with all the editorializing in the summary? Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago. What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter?
So... in a year and a half they shouldn't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things like:
1) Updated server software
2) Firewalls
3) Backups
And other "yer an idjit if you don't do this" kinda stuff?
For *any* kind of hosted service, having backups measures just slightly below "is it turned on" in terms of importance. And for a year and a half, NONE WERE DONE? Further, they did a major update to a SAN and didn't backup first?
This isn't about bashing Microsoft - highly successful businesses have had to close shop forever due to glaring, horrid oversights like this. This is gross incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
So... in a year and a half they shouldn't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things
Or maybe have done all that before buying them... what the hell kind of mickey-mouse outfit would buy another company without examining their operations?
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe have done all that before buying them... what the hell kind of mickey-mouse outfit would buy another company without examining their operations?
The kind of mickey-mouse outfit that's desperate for market share, particularly if that outfit isn't exactly late to the party (*cough* Windows CE / Mobile *cough*) and hasn't managed to capture a significant portion of it.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet that most companies, when buying other companies, don't check a lot of basic things before buying them. As for "mickey-mouse outfit", in my experience, most corporations fit that definition well. The people running them really aren't that smart, and make all kinds of dumb mistakes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Er... because it is a form of cloud computing which failed? When a failure like this occurs, it rightfully raises doubt as to the reliability of other cloud computing services, one of which happens to involve office.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Sir or Madam,
The responsible Anti-Microsoft Troll that should have replied to this post by now is on sick leave and was unable to prepare a custom flaming reply to this particular post. In lieu of that, attached is our generic template which we use to write all our flaming responses.
1. Make a general anti-Microsoft jab
2. Blame Microsoft for it's stance against Free Software (and also for lack of network neutrality, the current state of patent laws, the Iraq war, and the extinction of the dinosaurs)
3. Accuse the poster who wrote something positive about Microsoft of being either a fanboy or a Microsoft employee. If the poster in question made a comment about Microsoft's actual support of Free Software in a particular instance, accuse the poster of being an oblivious idiot unable to see through their Embrace-Extend-Extinguish approach
4. State that the Linux revolution is inevitable
5. Finish off with another outpour of flames
We hope you will be able to infer the potential content of the post that should have been done by the respective Troll. Please accept our apologies.
Sincerely,
Assistant Secretary,
Anti-Microsoft Trolling Association, Ltd.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's a bit of a non sequitur, to be sure. But the whole incident spells out in stark detail the dangers of "cloud computing", or as us folks who actually have worked with computers for more than than ten minutes call it; the client-server model. When explained as what it really is, it's a matter of ensuring adequate and timely backups. When described in some pathetic marketing term, it sounds like some magical new way of computing, no longer constrained by those old-fashioned good practices.
Quite frankly, I would never ever ever put any mission critical data or apps on a system that I couldn't back end the data on my own out of. If I can't move my data out of the app, then my data never gets there in the first place.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You really don't see the connection?
Yesterday, you put all your cell phone contacts and calendar data up in the "cloud".
Today, your data is lost.
Tomorrow, the same companies responsible for losing your cell phone data now want to take over all your Office documents.
Well, since this is /., you take your car in for a routine oil change. The mechanic botches the job.
Are you going to go back to the same mechanic for a transmission rebuild?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You really don't see the connection?
Yesterday, you put all your cell phone contacts and calendar data up in the "cloud".
Today, your data is lost.
Tomorrow, the same companies responsible for losing your cell phone data now want to take over all your Office documents.
The phrasing of this sounds chilling until one realizes that the main point here is that you still want to keep your own local copy. The T-Mobile phones should have done that. You should do that when creating documents on-line.
This is such a silly reason to vilify 'the cloud'.
From where I sit, the problem started when some guy wearing a tie said "and the phones use the server exclusively to house the data!" Dumb. The 'cloud' shouldn't even be part of this discussion.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, since this is /., you take your car in for a routine oil change. The mechanic botches the job.
Yeah, that sounds about right. That's why I try to do my own oil changes when I can.
The worst, though, is the state inspection. Without fail, something always seems to fail after one of those for me. Next time I'm going to demand they let me watch the work being done.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's up with all the editorializing in the summary?
You must be new here.
Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago.
A year and a half later and they don't have a handle on it? Someone's getting paid WAY too much.
What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing
Nothing to do with office (unless they're using Access, which would explain the data loss), but "cloud computing" is what a couple here have more logically and less buzzwordily renamed "OPS" -- Other People's Servers. This is EXACTLY what "cloud computing" is.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have not had this problem in their first 8 years. Then, 18 months after Microsoft acquires them, they have a critical failure. You think that's all coincidence?
I suppose it's possible for one company to buy another and leave the company alone, but Microsoft certainly didn't do this. They moved most of the developers to Project Pink (and most of them have left MS entirely by now). I think it's pretty clear that the new MS was responsible. They managed the company. The data was stored at Microsoft's data centers.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is trying to sell people on the idea that their data should be hosted at Microsoft data centers. Am I not supposed to be skeptical about this now?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
This is much like when MS bought Hotmail and promptly screwed it up in their attempt to move it to Windows servers.
Re: (Score:2)
But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation.
I don't see it. MS is one of those companies people either love or hate. The lovers will say "shit happens, move on" and the haters will say "I told you so". Sum tot = zip.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
So is there NOT a reason to blame Microsoft for any of this? I guess you also don't remember all the talk about Microsoft trying to get the Danger product moved onto a Windows platform instead of it's BSD and Java platform. Microsoft is well known for either buying a competitor and shutting them down or buying them and dictating the product be ported to Windows. They bashed the engineers at SoftImage for a few years on dropping the UNIX versions of their software even though they did get a Windows version running. Customers and engineers didn't want Windows and wanted to keep the UNIX versions. Microsoft finally sold the company and walked away with its tail between its legs and you can see by what the film industry uses that Windows was not welcome much in that environment. BSODs really piss off people who spend hours crunching data and don't see BSODs or the like on nix boxes. IMO
LoB
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I seem to remember Microsoft buying Hotmail back in the 90s, and royally screwing up its operations in much less than 18 months. They tried to move to Windows servers very quickly, and it was a disaster, and they were forced to go back to their FreeBSD infrastructure for a while.
Maybe something similar happened here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Last I checked, Hotmail still ran on FreeBSD
Which was what? 8 years ago?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, it was the last time he checked :)
[John]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data
Re: (Score:2)
BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data, but a minority are still affected (out of 1 million subscribers)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has been employing and run by Americans since it started, and they've produced nothing but buggy crap.
Meanwhile, the Mars rovers have been a tremendous success, built by American engineers using American-made software I believe (I'm pretty sure they use vxWorks). This is the epitome of software reliability I think.
I don't think nationality has much to do with this one.