Musk Says He’s Deleted CrowdStrike From Systems After Outage
(www.bloomberg.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (61)
sorted by:
I work with a guy who was previously in the finance sector of IT, one of the odd things that he has informed me of is how cheap they are and their attitude towards IT. It is like IT wasn't earning its way so they weren't getting respect and resources etc.
The very notion seems insane to me in the IT age where your business is heavily dependent on the IT being up all the time no excuses accepted. I have to imagine that this incident is a wake up call for a bunch of industries.
I'm not a IT person but even so I know full well to test before deployment. Heck I won't update the kernel on my PC before I have confirmed that I have a recent Timeshift to draw from if need be. The backups are created automatically but even so I still confirm.
Given that beancounters can't put a price on downtimes until they actually happen or the productivity increases from implementing good IT, this will continue to happen. This is another reason why corporate cybersecurity is just a box ticking exercise giving the illusion everything is going well.
This incident has a convenient scapegoat, everyone will crucify Crowdstrike switch the EDR vendor and continue coasting in neutral. Hell Crowdstrike isn't even on the cheap side so the beancounters will be happy if the new vendor is cheaper.
You imply you're running a Linux distro so you're already a cut above the regular MBAs who have the business awareness of dementia patients.
Consider that the vast majority of their peers, and the end customer's check signatories, would benefit from such dementia.
As always, may the best marketers win.
Firefighter paradox.
No fires: Why are we paying you?
Shit on fire: Why are we paying you?
The reason is probably because IT businesses started gouging companies for their mediocre and lacklustre services and using competition-excluding contracts coupled with extortionate fees in order to get these companies in stranglehold service agreements.
Years later these companies found out what kind of shit-tastic services they received and the costs were so high that they couldn't even get decent IT updates out of the contract. And now they know better than to trust IT businesses and treat them like the bottom-feeding scum that they are. :')
You'd think that business-user support would be better company that you pay $250,000 a year to would be better than the customer support you get from your bank...
But it's not.
It kind of depends on how they're structured. You should get some help for 250k a year. From a guy who gets paid 250k a year. The help is not cheap. On both ends, you really gotta make the time count, ya know cuz of the bean counters. But yeah for that amount you should get some engineering help. In some places you would. If it were my company, I would put you in contact with someone who can help. I don't know that every company is positioned to do that.
I've been dealing with a small services business lately, and they're very responsive to email during the weekday. You know that makes me feel good about doing business with them, so that's why I'd make sure any customers of me had that warm service. As the service provide, it's very easy to let it eat all your time, though.
That's because IT NEVER earns its way. It's a capital investment in efficiency. It does not actually create income. Organization leaders struggle badly to understand (let alone predict) efficiency in a tech upgrade that never brings actual income. It only can make income faster if it works. But then how do you prove that?
Normally, you have to do a cost analysis and identify total work hours in wages spent on things as simple as clicking 2 buttons. Then you have show the development time (in developer wages) for streamlining the process into one button, and add that as a cost. Then you have to go back and find the total work hours in wages spent on clicking one button. Then you present it to the organization as:
"We currently spend $36,000 in labor costs per year, company-wide, to click two buttons. If we use our team of developers to streamline the process into a single button click, it will cost us $950 in man hours to develop, $1200 for testing, and then $325 for training to create a new process. The total development and training Once the new process is complete $2,475 in labor cost. Once implemented, the total cost of clicking one button, per year, company-wide, should be $8,000"
If your IT executive can't make that statement, the business isn't going to know what's good for it.
God help you if you have to try and explain why purchasing a software suite from a vendor will help you, especially as the contract changes each year or so.
I don't find that at all surprising - the simplest explanation for why the finance sector encourages shortsighted behaviour in the companies they invest in is that the finance sector is full of shortsighted people.
tl;dr need to make sale