Board index » off-topic » Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes


2005-08-16 03:28:19 AM
off-topic6
Quote
>I also hope John will stop using any "we know best so don't challenge
>us" attitude in the future.

Perhaps it's just the way you express yourself in English, but that's
why I was asked you if you were attempting to learn or teach in another
message. OTOH, Rob and Jeff really do know best, other than possibly
someone on the InterBase R&D team, and I'd pretty much give them an
even shake.
You could say that they are experts as this, but not that they know best.
Noone knows best. You could know mutch, be an expert, but there is always
something that you do not know. Only God could know everything, and maybe
not even him. And all humans can make mistakes. Even those that you say
"knows best". The only thing preventing us from doing the same mistakes
again is learning from the mistakes we did. From the response I got on my
criticism, it does not look like this is going to happen in this case.
And I still don't like this "we know best, so don't come here and tell
otherwise" attitude. How can anyone learn anything with this attitude. I
know I won't. I also know that I don't know best, and that someone could
come with a better solution to a problem, or that I could be wrong
sometimes. I'm human like everybody else. But at least I admin it.
-Atle
 
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

Atle --
You posts on this subject are /incredibly/ obnoxious, /amazingly/
arrogant, /hopelessly/ ill-informed and flat out rude.
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

At 21:02:14, 15.08.2005, Atle Smelvær wrote:
Quote
>>>They told you they did. Is that not enough for you?
>>
>>But they did not.
>
>I think they did.

Ofcourse you do. Does not prove me wrong though.
Forget it. I have no idea what you think you are achieving with this.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing
systems is a symptom of professional immaturity." -- Edsger Dijkstra
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

At 20:59:44, 15.08.2005, Atle Smelvær wrote:
Quote
So you follow the same strategy.
I don't follow any strategy.
If the only reaction to telling what they have done is implicit
accusations of incompetence (which you can't judge actually, since you
were not there, and don't know ALL circumstances), I'm sure people will
be a little more careful with what they tell you next time.
They are after all not your employees, so they don't have to tell you
anything at all.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree."
-- Spike Milligan.
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

At 21:00:59, 15.08.2005, Atle Smelvær wrote:
Quote
>I don't need more information. You don't need it either.

You obviously do, because your post is without meaning. Still you post
it.
Forget it. You seem to be peed off because some data was lost, and now
cause a row, while it is too late anyway. It does not help, and your
extremely confrontational way of telling what you want to say does not
really make people listen carefully either.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"I love Mickey Mouse more than any woman I have ever known."
- Walt Disney (1901-1966)
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
At 21:00:59, 15.08.2005, Atle Smelvær wrote:


>>I don't need more information. You don't need it either.
>
>You obviously do, because your post is without meaning. Still you post
>it.


Forget it. You seem to be peed off because some data was lost, and now
cause a row, while it is too late anyway. It does not help, and your
extremely confrontational way of telling what you want to say does not
really make people listen carefully either.
Frankly, I can't understand why you need to be so insulted by Atle's
posts. OK, he did express himself a bit more agressively than you would
wish, but that's understandable considering he just suffered data loss.
It's quite clear that Atle suffered loss of data that he knew was
readable minutes before the DB was shut down, but he was told that data
corruption had already occurred. This did not match up in his mind (nor
in mine or anyone else's I hope), which led him to ask what actually
happened.
He has repeatedly, although somewhat belatedly, stressed that the
purpose of his questions is to determine what went wrong (and something
did go wrong, otherwise the data he could read just before DB shutdown
would not have been lost) and to make sure that the same mistake will
not be made again if a similar situation arises in the future. This is
not strange or insulting. It's constructive. (And Robert Schieck finally
did give an excellent answer - thank you.)
This whole thread would have been a lot shorter if you had simply
answered his questions instead of arguing about whether he has the right
to ask them or not. So, in a way, if time was wasted it's not primarily
Atle's fault - it's your own.
Morals of the story:
1. If you want to get answers to your questions, take a deep breath and
calm down before you ask them, and make sure you ask them non-agressively.
2. If you're working with other people's data and a data loss occur, be
prepared to answer all questions about what actually happened, without
prestige. These people need to know why their data was lost, and they
will be frustrated and perhaps angry because of the loss, so be prepared
to see past an angry tone in questions asked.
When accidents happen, people have a need to know why the accident
occured. In detail. It's just the way the human mind works.
Kjell
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kjell Rilbe
Home: +46 8 7610734
Cell: +46 733 442464
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there's a price for bein' me, that's one I'll have to pay"
Aaron Tippin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

Quote
>So you follow the same strategy.

I don't follow any strategy.

If the only reaction to telling what they have done is implicit
accusations of incompetence (which you can't judge actually, since you
were not there, and don't know ALL circumstances), I'm sure people will
be a little more careful with what they tell you next time.
I know more than enough to know that they missed some vital actions.
First of all, there was no real control on the backup process. Witch led to
a backup that was one week old. Second, they did not try to dump the reports
for the last week in memory manually even though they did know that there
was corruption. So they shut down the server, and the data was lost.
The first part they did admit and they was working on some notification for
the backup process. So that is something that I suppose will not happen in
the future. But in the second part, they just told us that they did all that
could be done. When someone tell me that, and I know that there are things
they did not do, then I inform them of that. From what I see they do not
handle information like that very well.
Quote
They are after all not your employees, so they don't have to tell you
anything at all.
They are not my employees, but their actions destroyed 4 of my reports. And
a total of 100 reports for all of us. That is more than enough reason for
them to inform us about this event. That you tell otherwise, just shows your
attitude toward this.
That they did something wrong, is not the same as incompetence. And there
was no accusations. It's better for them to know that there was another
possibility that they did not try before closing down the database server,
whitch led to the loss of these 100 reports. And they need to know that, and
learn that this should be done if this happens again. For them to react like
this to my criticism is not good at all. Or should I perhaps just shut up
and let them do the same if it happens again?
-Atle
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

A very constructive and good post.
Thank you.
-Atle
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

At 08:05:39, 16.08.2005, Kjell Rilbe wrote:
Quote
Frankly, I can't understand why you need to be so insulted by Atle's
posts. OK, he did express himself a bit more agressively than you would
wish, but that's understandable considering he just suffered data loss.
I'm not insulted at all. I just don't understand his constant asking.
Data is lost, and his constant asking won't get it back.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"Too many pieces of music finish too long after the end."
- Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971)
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Rob and I have decided to no longer go into any details in public if there is a
problem.
Thanks.
- Leo
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

Quote
I'm not insulted at all. I just don't understand his constant asking.
Data is lost, and his constant asking won't get it back.
Maybe you understand it better if you read the whole post you just answered:
snip:
---
He has repeatedly, although somewhat belatedly, stressed that the
purpose of his questions is to determine what went wrong (and something
did go wrong, otherwise the data he could read just before DB shutdown
would not have been lost) and to make sure that the same mistake will
not be made again if a similar situation arises in the future. This is
not strange or insulting. It's constructive. (And Robert Schieck finally
did give an excellent answer - thank you.)
---
You have a habit of reading only small parts of posts before answering (the
posts I know about). I don't think the people who wrote the posts you answer
find that contructive when they have to repeat things that they already told
about in the previous post. This is also not meant as an insult, but
contructive feedback that you may do what you wish with.
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
At 08:05:39, 16.08.2005, Kjell Rilbe wrote:

>Frankly, I can't understand why you need to be so insulted by Atle's
>posts. OK, he did express himself a bit more agressively than you would
>wish, but that's understandable considering he just suffered data loss.

I'm not insulted at all. I just don't understand his constant asking.
Data is lost, and his constant asking won't get it back.
I repeat the two last lines of my post:
Quote
When accidents happen, people have a need to know why the accident
occured. In detail. It's just the way the human mind works.
It may be rational and it may not, but that doesn't change the fact that
the need is there. In Atle's case he wants to know because he wants to
know if the people handling the problem learned from any mistakes that
they might have made this time, so that data loss can be prevented next
time.
Is that so hard to understand?
And I repeat: it's usually easier to just answer the question than to
argue about whether the question is motivated, rational, relevant, etc,
and if the person asking it has the right to do so. I fail to see the
point of *that*.
Kjell
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kjell Rilbe
Home: +46 8 7610734
Cell: +46 733 442464
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there's a price for bein' me, that's one I'll have to pay"
Aaron Tippin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

At 14:53:31, 16.08.2005, Atle Smelvær wrote:
Quote
>I'm not insulted at all. I just don't understand his constant asking.
>Data is lost, and his constant asking won't get it back.

Maybe you understand it better if you read the whole post you just
answered:
I understood it fine. I still don't see you achieving anything with your
repeated accusations of incompetence than that people responsible will be
less and less inclined to listen the more you go on.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
practice, there is."
- Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

At 17:05:05, 16.08.2005, Kjell Rilbe wrote:
Quote
>When accidents happen, people have a need to know why the accident
>occured. In detail. It's just the way the human mind works.
Perhaps that is the way some human minds work, especially of those who
don't trust others. Mine doesn't.
If a dental technician tells me he ruined a model for an important
bridge, I don't go on asking him why it was ruined, if he or she tried to
glue it together, etc. If he or she tells me he or she made a mistake,
and that the model is kaputt, I accept it, and will just call the
patient, explain that something went wrong, and tell them that we must
redo a few steps.
Why is that? because I know that the technician will have used the best
of his or her abilities to fix the problem, and I won't try to tell them
what to do to avoid it next time. They know already. Assuming they don't
is accusing them of incompetence, and that serves no useful purpose than
to annoy them.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning."
- Aristotle Onassis (1906-1975)
 

Re:Re: QC Going Down in 5Minutes

Quote
>>When accidents happen, people have a need to know why the accident
>>occured. In detail. It's just the way the human mind works.

Perhaps that is the way some human minds work, especially of those who
don't trust others. Mine doesn't.
I trust others, but it would be stupid to trust that everything is done
right when you know otherwise. That could be your way of looking at things,
but it is not mine.
Quote
If a dental technician tells me he ruined a model for an important
bridge, I don't go on asking him why it was ruined, if he or she tried to
glue it together, etc. If he or she tells me he or she made a mistake,
and that the model is kaputt, I accept it, and will just call the
patient, explain that something went wrong, and tell them that we must
redo a few steps.

Why is that? because I know that the technician will have used the best
of his or her abilities to fix the problem, and I won't try to tell them
what to do to avoid it next time. They know already. Assuming they don't
is accusing them of incompetence, and that serves no useful purpose than
to annoy them.
It would be nice if you posted something similar instead. If this dental
technician told you he did everything right when he ruined this model, and
you know that it was not true, would you still not inform him about it?
Would you not worry that he would do the same the next time?
And could you please stop this nonsence discussion, because this one is
wasting our time and nothing constructive can come out of it.
-Atle