Hacker News Reader

Comment by hermitdev | Hacker News Reader

That largely mirrors my experience with IBM's DB2 Connect software on Windows ~20 years ago. Follow the install documentation to the letter, it doesn't work. Contact support.

Months of follow ups later and:

IBM: "this isn't a supported configuration."

Me: "But, it's documented as a supported configuration."

IBM: "It has been removed from the latest documentation."

Me: "And when was that published?"

IBM: "Tomorrow"

Even after getting a DB2 Connect install working, it was a nightmare then dealing with their compatibility flags, which changed with every fixpack. Want feature A to work? Set the flag for it...but, you'll lose features B & C if you do that...

(edit: formatting)

View on HN

It's bizarre how companies reach a certain size, and they seem to lose all developers. There's the clueless helpdesk and the marketing/sales org, but nobody seems to be writing code / fixing issues anymore.

In my experience, contacting a 10-person company about a bug means that a dev is going to look at the issue in a day or two. Contacting a 10 000 person company about a bug means that a dev will never see the bug - unless they happen to be browsing Reddit and see someone complaining about it

Building new things is seen as business risk, I reckon.

This is why startups or VC backed things can explode, and innovate, but once you IPO, innovation is not what’s important - it’s about perspective I guess.

When the death spiral of anti-innovation starts, people such as talented developers start to drop off, and in the end you’ll have a slow, bureaucratic mess of an org, sustained by the inertia of an already existing customer base.

“How about we yank up them licensing fees?!”, or my favorite “Let’s rename a product suite!” (Citrix, as a case in point, is notorious for this…)

This be the enterprise IT lifecycle.

Recent Fortune 500 contracting experience I had:

Ubuntu was to be introduced into the company. The team was 1 developer and 4 managers. When we asked for collaboration with the developer the manager kept saying "we don't do this" "it's not a supported configuration".

The developer defied his direct superior and offered collaboration and as a result was removed from the project.

Now the project staff was 4 managers and 0 developers.

The manager claimed he was doing this to protect his developer from overwork, but really it was just about his own ego.

A lot of the projects I saw there were basically 1 engineer and a couple of managers of some sort. Security manager, Project Manager, Portfolio Manager, some medium management and some other people. And then they would constantly say that they don't have resources to fix things. Well yeah, because you have 1 engineer for 10 projects, but 4 managers per project.

The developers are there but they are so far removed from the customer experience that it seems like they aren't. Large companies don't like developers talking directly with customers because they tend to speak frankly and honestly.

Or, heavens forbid, offer help for free. ”Oh hey yeah that’s like 10 lines of code, I’ll put in the next service pack”

Nnnnnoooooooo -sales org

It's only bizarre if you haven't lived a while.

It's actually quite normal. Notice how most things posted on HackerNews are neither News, nor about Hacking.

It's normal, that things morph into some lowest common denominator 'thing' that makes people that have any taste shudder on the inside. It doesn't make most everyone else shudder, which is why it is almost inevitable, reduction to the lowest common denominator, of everything.

> IBM's DB2 Connect software on Windows ~20 years ago

So many really middling memories just came flooding back.

Similar, but with IBM Websphere MQ.

Why a message queueing technology is branded under 'Websphere' I have nooo idea, but it turned out to be a nightmare of various configurations jammed together and not working well.

Tibco Enterprise Messaging (EMS) on the other hand is a dream to work with IME.

MQ was MQ series before the WebSphere rebrand. The rebranding happened because IBM is managed by silly people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com