Letters to the editor

The blame game

Regarding Mark Gibbs' column "Laying blame when things are going wrong": I don't think we hear enough of the "who's to blame? We are!" philosophy. Besides being unpopular (who wants to blame themselves anyway?), by speaking this way, we force the obvious conclusion, which Gibbs states so well: "Slow down. Stop whining. Be accurate and thorough."

Not only is Gibbs' column an indictment against the IT industry, but against many facets of our fast-paced world. I appreciate the reminder and hearing someone else make the call to "slow down and be thorough!"

Ron Hite
Network administrator
Bell, Boyd & Lloyd
Chicago

In his column "Laying blame when things are going wrong," Mark Gibbs writes: "What's more, the IT staff doesn't make enough stink about poor practices and decision making."

I've worked in several places where, when one does make a stink, one is let go. After experiencing this a few times, one learns to keep one's mouth closed and cover one's posterior with documentation so the guilty do take the appropriate blame.

Caren Forrest
Indianapolis

Regarding Mark Gibbs' column "Laying blame when things are going wrong": I have maintained that Microsoft's customers are getting exactly the quality of software they deserve.

I have always held my vendors to high standards of quality. When I find a bug in Solaris, I call it in to Sun. Sometimes I get a fix quickly, sometimes it takes longer. I generally get an admission that "it shouldn't do that" and that an official bug will be entered into Sun's tracking system.

The vast majority of people using Windows products have low expectations of their systems. They don't know any better. The only computers they have used have been running Windows and have needed frequent rebooting and reloading. They are amazed when they find out that I usually don't have to reboot my Unix systems more frequently than every 100 days. We need to educate folks to expect - no, demand - better.

Paul Kraus
Systems architect
Information Management Group
Albany, N.Y.

I don't think Mark Gibbs is wrong, but I want to clarify where a good portion of the blame lies: with the bean counters.

Every company has them, the so-called financial analysts who routinely override the decisions that professionals want to make and force them to buy/lease/rent the least-expensive solution because it is "good enough" and will help the bottom line. These are the same folks who, when layoff times come, press to lay off the technical people because they make the most money - then decry the lack of top-notch technical support. Or they ram departmental outsourcing - pushing support out the door to some company that gives a low-ball fixed-price contract - in the name of saving money and being better able to manage expenses. So the company ends up with a bunch of techs who have no vested interest in the company's long-term success.

Frank Vaughan
Chandler, Ariz.

Mark Gibbs has left out one of the biggest factors in the "blame game": Microsoft's patches are notorious for causing more damage than they're de-signed to prevent. And this SQL patch was not a simple double-clicker. A front-page story in the same issue ("Next 'Slammer' could be worse") states, "[Many Microsoft customers] say the patch is hard to do and can easily take six hours." And you still need to down your server to complete the patch. It's no wonder users are hesitant to immediately apply every one of the countless patches from Redmond.

Paul Ames
Hauppauge, N.Y.

Key difference

In his letter to the editor "Clue giving", Steve Sacco states that "it's just simple economics" regarding charging for e-mail (or other data) on the Internet. His analogy to telemarketers and the phone system doesn't seem to wash. As far as I know, telemarketers pay no fee to call me other than their normal phone charges. Sort of like spam, no charge for e-mail beyond the normal connection fee. He states "I generally hang up ..." How is that different than hitting the delete key? Mind you, we need some controls on spam. Comparing it to telemarketing schemes to lobby for charges just doesn't work.

Wayne Richards
Massillon, Ohio

Securing the castle

Regarding "Bush reportedly asks for cyberwarfare policy": Unless your castle is completely secure, you don't go out on raiding parties. If your castle walls have weaknesses or holes in them, you must be prepared to suffer the inevitable consequences of retaliation. The general (and quite correct) consensus in the security community is that the computer systems in the U.S. are very far from being secure enough to be able to withstand a concerted effort by a foreign hacker or attack.

On the other hand, I do agree that plans must be prepared for a counterattack in the event of a cyberstrike on U.S. assets. The counterstrikes should and would be more of a defensive measure to decrease or stop the attacker. Such plans will take quite some time to devise. In addition, personnel will need to be hired and trained. On that note, it may be possible to enlist a public corps of volunteers that can be contacted and assist in a counter-strike. These corps volunteers will already have the skills and experience with cyber-defense and counter-electronic measures.

Stephen Smith
Director of IT
A Novo Broadband
Hollywood, Fla.

Helping the hacker

Your story "Next 'Slammer' could be worse" states: ". . . the notion of blocking traffic automatically remains controversial because of worries about cutting off legitimate traffic." Blocking traffic, whereby legitimate traffic is blocked along with illegitimate traffic, is always the wrong thing to do. By blocking traffic for a certain port, we just complete the hacker's work by taking the server off the network. The proper solution to these types of attacks is to always filter the bad traffic out and let the legitimate traffic continue unfettered.

Hank Nussbacher
Consultant
Riverhead Networks
Tel Aviv

Letters to the editor

Related Links