The problem with these articles is that they are hit pieces that follow a stereo type. You badmouth I.T. as the problem and nobody says anything, then the stereotype continues unabated. If I.T. responds well then they just don't get it and obviously they are too blind, or egotistical to see that it's true. It's a no win situation for the victim of the article. Hey I.T. are you still beating your wife? Wait what? I never.. Oh so you're in denial about it eh? Tell me more wife beater...

"The article is BS; most of the items could apply to any other area or field" Exactly, but I.T. is low man on the totem pole. There couldn't possibly be a problem with anyone else. Everyone has problems. People are people, you get ego's and attitudes in all parts of the company. In fact it's rewarded in some parts of the company. The higher up you get, the more it's rewarded.

They don't want to hear the opinion of I.T. They want what they want and screw the consequences. Just make it work! The same people that don't accept the "it's done this way for a very good reason" are the same people that tell you they can't change something on their side because "that's just the way it's always been done". They hate the question of "why are we doing this"? I don't ask that because I'm questioning their need or decision, I ask it because I'm trying to figure out what the ultimate goal is and if what they are asking for will actually get them there. Often it will not. The conversation should instead be, here is where we'd ultimately like to be and what we'd like to have for capabilities, now lets talk about the best way to make that happen. Instead it's go do this. Now go do that. Now put this over here. Ok now give me the whole thing. What do you mean we can't do that because of the first two things we did? That's your problem, fix it.

Management often doesn't get the concept of just because one CAN do a thing, doesn't mean that one SHOULD do a thing.

"Chances are, you have little to no knowledge whatsoever about their job."

Chances are greater that they have less knowledge about what I do. The difference is, I'd be happy to sit there and let them explain to me anything they wanted that might help get the best solution developed, the same is not true in the other direction. Worse, many of them think they know your job. This is a verbatim quote from up high said to me: "Don't you think I know about server rooms? I've been in a server room before." Yeah, I've been in plenty of mechanic shops as well but I wouldn't claim to be able to know how to change out an engine in my car. The difference is, I'll admit that, management won't. The ego level is astounding sometimes. This coming from a person that doesn't know to check the surge strip on the floor if his computer doesn't turn on.

"This is why everyone hates I.T."

This is why I.T. hates condescending people that think they know everything, including how to do I.T.'s job when they have called for the 10th time in the last 3 months because they can't find a toolbar in Word. They treat I.T. like garbage and then they demand their respect. They don't have it. Treat them like people instead and it will be a completely different experience. Nobody has to bow down and worship at the throne of I.T. (yes I've met a few I.T. people that believe this, they should be fired), but don't treat them like dirt. Just about every person in I.T. that I've met that's got an attitude didn't have one when they started at their job. It was developed as a response to the way the rest of the organization treated them.

I've met I.T. managers at companies that I think would fit the description in this article. What they don't cover is the fact that nobody cares about I.T. unless something doesn't work. The rest of the org has no desire to hear about what I.T. thinks or what it's needs may be. I.T. is considered a barrier to them because someone (usually high up in the org) wasn't allowed to have bittorrent on their work laptop to download music at work, or they couldn't load a copy of their software from home (which they probably didn't own anyway) on their work computer. Now we're the bad guys. I'm more than happy to explain anything I do to anyone but usually it's met with the attitude of umm ok that's nice I've go to go. People don't care about our jobs and what we have to do all day. They only thing they care about is that they get everything that they want.

They don't even care about the rest of their company. I can't tell you how many times I've said something along the lines of...well yes technically I could do that for you but here's the problem, it won't scale up to fit the rest of the company and now I'll have this island system sitting out here for you, and perhaps for another department if they want to do something similar, and then well wind up with all of these disjoint systems that can't talk. We should really do this right and get it funded so we can make it work for everyone. The response I get back? I don't give a **** about everyone else I just want this for our department. If someone else wants it, that's their problem. What they don't get is that it's our problem. We're the ones expected to make all this work and we have to look at things from a full organization perspective. Most department managers could care less about what any other department needs or how what they want will affect the rest of the company.

People look down their noses at I.T. as being under them and then they complain when I.T. starts giving them the same level of respect. Suddenly it's our fault and our jobs to change. It's a holiday dinner, we're perpetually seated at the kids table while the adults talk about adult things and wave us off if we try and add something to the conversation as not being able to understand it or contribute to it and now we're faulted for not being a team player. Look in the mirror guys, you're a big part of the problem. The fix has to come from both sides.

"Go ahead and take this "I deserve it" attitude to your supervisor though."

He's on the CEO track, let him go for it. Soon he will be doing little or nothing for exorbitant pay checks and he'll be able to make decisions that completely screw the company which will subsequently result in him being tremendously compensated to leave and go screw up some other company instead.

Ok sarcasm aside, I completely get where you are coming from. Sadly I have to agree with the, if they don't have money to do it right, they don't have money for you. If you're sure there's no compensation for extra work, then perhaps you should do it, put it on resume and then use said improved resume to find a company that rewards this kind of effort. You may however wish to defer that until after the next performance review where at such time you can push for a salary increase based on the added value that you have now demonstrated that you can provide.

Notepad++ and Teracopy. Don't need to wait for windows 8 for that.

Just remember: Before there was a Reddit Effect, or a Dig Effect, there was the Slashdot Effect. /. had the ability to overwhelm sites by creating interest in them on a scale not really seen before. Web servers would tremble if they became a front page story here. I've been a mostly silent lurker for years before I finally set up an account and I'm still mostly silent, but it's we that should be thanking you for all the fish. Wish you luck and happiness in your future endeavors.

It hit my system about 9:45am Central time US. I was able to yank it out of the updates for the rest of the company before it went farther. I had 3 machines out of about 200 affected by this. On my machine it didn't delete svchost.exe on the others it did. One machine did not auto reboot. It was just very slow, the start menu looked like it had been pulled all the way down to the bottom however you could not drag it back up. All USB ports except one stopped working and there was no network access.. On that machine svchost.exe had 0 bytes. Adding the updated extra.dat to program files\common files\mcafee\engine and replacing svchost.exe resolved all issues. There's an updated 5959 dat file out now that forgoes having to deal with extra.dat.

The updated dat is available now, an updated extra.dat was available earlier this morning. I was the one that posted it in the tech support forums. You could have however just disabled access protection and on access scan to keep it from scanning at all. Not a great solution but at least your machine works. If your svchost.exe got nuked, copy it back from the system32\dllcache folder.

So you're of the opinion that if something doesn't meet up with claimed performance gains, obviously the purchaser is at fault and it's not possible that the manufacturer overstated claims at all? Or worse, you're saying that if you actually believed a vendor, you're an idiot? If you aren't seeing the benefits claimed, you should just what, shut up and not say anything? I don't agree with that. I don't think you do either and I'm probably oversimplifying your argument, but that's how it breaks down when I look at it. I think if you're in a position to throw some weight around as a company that size is, you go ahead and speak up and call a spade a spade. It may come down to something Facebook is doing wrong, in which case that guy will be eating a lot of crow, but if in fact, there's some overstating going on, and we know there often is, it's in the best interest of everyone if people step up and call them on it. I'll cite the AMD example again. We all know batter claims are BS, so why should we continue to put up with it? The answer is, we shouldn't, but what you or I say on a comment board, even slashdot, isn't really going to make a difference to your hp's and lenovo's and dell's, because none of them are willing to make a realistic adjustment to their numbers unless they are sure the others will follow, otherwise hey they are suddenly getting a lot less run time than everyone else. It takes a company such as AMD to put it out there on the table to get attention. I think he has some very valid arguments there. Again, specifics and numbers would really help that article, but take a look at google. They basically have the same opinion which is why they build their own units. There's a lot of debate as to if that's a great idea to do or not, but I think google won that debate because they do it and it works. Perhaps Facebook is going to need to go a similar route if server vendors aren't going to deliver what they want. We're all sitting here nitpicking the words of a company that actually runs a huge operation whereas I'd be willing to be bet most of the people here replying (myself included) have never operated anything on a scale that they are talking about. I think we're going to have to wait and see, but I'm hoping there's some follow up articles that detail this out more as I'd like to see the ultimate outcome.

I have a poster of that in my office... the cheap/fast/good triangle :) A lot of vendors like Lefthand however like the whole tray of sata drives... It's not bad for things like file servers for mid range companies.

I think you're doing a bit of guilt by association. The IT guys running the back end are not necessarily the ones that do code design, or corporate direction such as what new bone headed feature to add into Facebook that will annoy all of the users today. I'd suspect they are like a lot of companies where they are just tasked with making it work. You can't scale to something of Facebook's size without knowing a bit about what you are doing. Don't lump the techs in with the policy makers.

What a waste of money, you could have gotten one of those things you plug into your cigarette lighter and gotten similar results ;)

Hence my request for more specifics.