Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tech Titans Oracle, Red Hat and Google To Help Fix Healthcare.gov

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the with-a-little-help-from-my-friends dept.

United States 404

wjcofkc writes "The United States Government has officially called in the calvary over the problems with Healthcare.gov. Tech titans Oracle, Red Hat and Google have been tapped to join the effort to fix the website that went live a month ago, only to quickly roll over and die. While a tech surge of engineers to fix such a complex problem is arguably not the greatest idea, if you're going to do so, you might as well bring in the big guns. The question is: can they make the end of November deadline?"

cancel ×

404 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Answer: No. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295715)

Nine women cannot make a baby in one month.

Re:Answer: No. (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 months ago | (#45295765)

Nine women cannot make a baby in one month.

True, but the website already exists. If it's a case of fixing defects rather than re-architecting from scratch, there's no reason why multiple teams can't work on different parts of the system. And multiple people within a team can't work on different defects.

Defect fixing is indeed somewhat scalable.

Re:Answer: No. (5, Insightful)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 9 months ago | (#45295825)

It all depends on the quality of the existing code base. More often than not, it's better to start from scratch.

Why can't they start over ? (3, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 9 months ago | (#45296339)

Instead of fixing a bunch of hopeless code, why can't they start over the damn thing - with a properly designed paradigm ?

Re:Answer: No. (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#45295873)

The last time I had to "re-architect" an existing website, I ended up putting in roughly twice the amount of time as the original "architects" (and I use that word very very loosely). Believe me, there's a lot of shit out there that will require a lot more effort to fix than originally went into building it.

Re:Answer: No. (1)

Frojack123 (2606639) | about 9 months ago | (#45295943)

The last time I had to "re-architect" an existing website, I ended up putting in roughly twice the amount of time as the original "architects" (and I use that word very very loosely). Believe me, there's a lot of shit out there that will require a lot more effort to fix than originally went into building it.

Good thing they brought a "lot more effort" to bear then.
Not only more, but higher quality.

Re:Answer: No. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#45295997)

Yes, because it's likely they'll have to put as much effort into fixing it as the original designers, if not more.

Re:Answer: No. (1)

Frojack123 (2606639) | about 9 months ago | (#45296201)

Yes, because it's likely they'll have to put as much effort into fixing it as the original designers, if not more.

Lets hope so.
Or lets hope they have the common sense to start over.

Re:Answer: No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296421)

Doesn't matter. They're too big to move quickly, and too big to have the kind of tight-knit teams of exceptional people that could make a skunkworks type project work. They'll probably end up throwing too much resources on it, but at least they can make a grand show of valiantly making the effort. In that sense, this is mostly a PR exercise.

Re:Answer: No. (5, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about 9 months ago | (#45295921)

there's no reason why multiple teams can't work on different parts of the system

You've never worked on anything with multiple teams working on different parts, have you?
It never fucking works. You need knowledgeable oversight.

Re:Answer: No. (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#45296019)

Exactly. I think the Linux kernel is a damned good example of how a large number of developers working in very different kinds of development environments, some working in side-projects like Netfilter, are coordinated by one guy intimately acquainted with the kernel.

You can say what you like about Linus's attitude at times, but the fact that the Linux kernel is running on everything from supercomputers to be Nexus 7 tablet tells you that there is a way to successfully and productively organize multiple teams to produce a successful software product.

Re:Answer: No. (5, Funny)

Virtucon (127420) | about 9 months ago | (#45295771)

No but I heard 18 Women can do it in two weeks. The guy from Infosys told me so.

Re:Answer: No. (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 9 months ago | (#45295829)

That only works in Bangalore.

Re:Answer: No. (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 9 months ago | (#45295863)

That only works in Bangalore.

Bang-a-Lot?

Re:Answer: No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296061)

Phuk-et.

Re:Answer: No. (5, Insightful)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 9 months ago | (#45295823)

the Mythical Man Month returns

Re:Answer: No. (5, Funny)

Jstlook (1193309) | about 9 months ago | (#45296077)

My wife saw that book on my shelf last night and asked if it was related to a man's period. I had to chuckle.

Re:Answer: No. (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45296093)

.... with a vengeance. And this time, its personal .... health insurance that's at stake.

At least the stakes are low. No worries.

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare [forbes.com]

Re:Answer: No. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296357)

That article is so full of contradictory statements it's ridiculous. Which isn't to say I'm defending the excessively sugar-coated defenses the administration made in 2010. But 94 million is an upper limit, and it's mostly composed of private insurers and private companies purposefully choosing to change coverage, not because the law mandates it.

And let's not forget about the 20-40 million people who will be unable to keep their lack of insurance coverage. What's the difference between being uninsured and underinsured? Maybe I should be allowed to get a car insurance policy with a $100 limit. I mean, freedom, right?

If you want to diss the ACA, then diss it on its merits.

I hate taxes as much as the next guy. More, in fact. My combined income is over $240k/year, almost all earned income, so its taxed heavily. It's a gigantic bitch. But you know what? I grew up in poverty, in foster homes. I benefited from a safety net. And the elder members of my family all depend on some sort of government assistance. So I just suck it up, because as the extremely conservative Justice Holmes once said, taxes are the price of civilization. And this civilization let's me make almost a quarter of a million per year. You think I could make that in Mexico, Brazil, or China?

The penalties for having no insurance are is like $150/year. If you can't afford that, then you have bigger problems--and in any event, if you couldn't afford it the government would pay for it.

Re:Answer: No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295913)

Nine women cannot make a baby in one month.

Perhaps not, but I'd be willing to help them try.

Re:Answer: No. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296345)

Ok! But afterwards, why don't you bottom for 9 men and we'll also see if you produce a butt baby in 1 month!

Or are you just a sexist asshole?

Re:Answer: No. (1)

Frojack123 (2606639) | about 9 months ago | (#45295923)

True, But...

With Oracle doing JUST the database,
And Google and Redhat handling the server Cloud
and Google fixing the bugs in the existing code or rewriting large segments
it could conceivably get done in time, because it is just a software system with a web presence, not a baby.

Unlike a baby, you can LEGALLY dump the stillbirth into the trash and start over.

Re:Answer: No. (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#45295977)

Nine women cannot make a baby in one month.

But I bet even one woman could spell cavalry, and know the difference.

Slashdot editors wanted. No Experience needed. We wouldn't know what to do with experience if we tripped over it.

Re:Answer: No. (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 9 months ago | (#45296365)

Interestingly said.

Even if by some miracle, they bring something up, it doesn't fix the actual problems. Ridiculously increased rates, it's a new tax on everyone, lies about keeping one's old policy and a general over-all burdon on the remaining who are employed above the poverty line.

easy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295725)

So I'll be able to log in with my google account and everything will already be filled in.

Re:easy (1)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#45296105)

Nah, just buy it in the Google Play Store.

They could have written an Android and Apple app by now.

Vermont's Site is Toast (4, Informative)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 9 months ago | (#45295729)

Our Gov is finally "out of patience" with Vermont's site (built by the same CGI that did such a bang up job on the Fed system: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20131031/NEWS03/310310034/Governor-Peter-Shumlin-Web-woes-prompt-changes-to-Vermont-health-reform [burlingtonfreepress.com]

Re:Vermont's Site is Toast (2)

Skapare (16644) | about 9 months ago | (#45296141)

Demand that further payments using taxpayer money not be made to CGI.

Re: Vermont's Site is Toast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296329)

Heh.... I worked for CGI. They are a lowballer.
No doubt, on both the OP site & yours CGI was chosen because they said they had the talent to do it, yet somehow came in cheaper than everyone else.
They then would've had a PM stationed locally with a large team off shore writing shite code.

Re:Vermont's Site is Toast (5, Interesting)

BradMajors (995624) | about 9 months ago | (#45296379)

All Vermont needs to do is buy a copy of Kentucky's system. Kentucky's system works fine.

Calvary? Really? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295731)

I think it's cavalry.

Calvary? (5, Funny)

themushroom (197365) | about 9 months ago | (#45295779)

It's a Biblical reference -- and at this rate it would take divine intervention.

Re:Calvary? (4, Funny)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#45296011)

It's a Biblical reference -- and at this rate it would take divine intervention.

This is government, nobody gets crucified, they all get promoted.

Re:Calvary? (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45296043)

It's a Biblical reference -- and at this rate it would take divine intervention.

Minus that it's going to hell in a checkout basket.

Re:Calvary? (1)

anon mouse-cow-aard (443646) | about 9 months ago | (#45296305)

As in collectively the three of them are going to have CGI drag a cross on their back around the country for a few months, before they have the company install the cross, and they will nail CGI to it in a standing, sunward facing position? On Good Friday, they will go into Chapter 11. only to return a few days later, clean up some left over bills, and then disappear for good?

Re:Calvary? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295835)

Good, someone else spotted this.

We are anonymous. We are cowards. Goddammit, we care about spelling and grammar.

Re:Calvary? Really? (3, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45296127)

Of course maybe it was a literary illusion. ;D

Re:Calvary? Really? (2)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 9 months ago | (#45296441)

A literary illusion?

I think you mean "allusion". Unless that was some illusion passing me by, going "whoosh"...

Re:Calvary? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296493)

allusion?

Re:Calvary? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296409)

No, it's exactly right. They must think it's time for a good old-fashioned crucifixion.

Amazon (5, Interesting)

qzzpjs (1224510) | about 9 months ago | (#45295737)

I think they should have just listed the plans on Amazon. Almost everyone already knows how to buy stuff from them and their servers would have handled it.

Re:Amazon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295957)

I've been saying this for weeks now. Plus, people can rate the plans for next year.

Bonus if they actually spawn off an indepndent instance or code fork it to rebrand it and clear out the lawn mowers and stuff.

Re:Amazon (4, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 9 months ago | (#45296177)

Prices and availability vary hugely for the same insurance plan for different people. Amazon has no way of handling that.

Re:Amazon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296517)

They WERE caught a while back in selling at different (sometimes higher) prices to logged-in users. They stopped doing it, but they at least have some experience.

Re:Amazon (1)

BradMajors (995624) | about 9 months ago | (#45296397)

You could already buy all of the available plans through einsurance.com. I do not see what value the government website adds.

Re:Amazon (3, Funny)

Xyrus (755017) | about 9 months ago | (#45296469)

Just what we need. One-click insurance from Amazon. :P

And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295743)

I think the question is how much are we paying them?

Re:And... (0)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 9 months ago | (#45296153)

I think the question is how much are we paying them?

On top of the 600 million dollars taxpayers have already spent for a non-working website. Where's all the money going to? Does the U.S. get a refund from the original developers?

if only they could fix healthcare.gov by (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295751)

bombing the hell out of it!

Why not IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295757)

Guess they didn't want it done right

Re:Why not IBM (4, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 months ago | (#45295793)

IBM certainly made sure the Nazi's CRM system worked right.

Re:Why not IBM (4, Interesting)

Virtucon (127420) | about 9 months ago | (#45295811)

No, they wanted it done and not outsourced to India.

Re:Why not IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296459)

Guess they didn't want it done right

How does that blue kool-aid taste???

Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295761)

How many hundreds of millions will this cost? I think Obama is trying to out do Bush in flushing money down the toilet.

Re:Cost? (1)

icebike (68054) | about 9 months ago | (#45296037)

He has already succeeded at that, and if ObamaCare gets off the ground it will be like 10x over all prior presidents combined.

Upload all my health data to google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295775)

What can possibly go wrong?
It's in the cloud

Bwahahahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295783)

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Cough.

Let's see.. (4, Funny)

Virtucon (127420) | about 9 months ago | (#45295799)

In two months the site will be using Oracle and Ellison will charge the Feds a fortune for the license fees.
Google will start mining every piece of data it can get off the website, of course the NSA will be stealing that and stashing it in Utah.

Red Hat will push it all to RHEL which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Re:Let's see.. (1)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about 9 months ago | (#45296485)

In two months the site will be using Oracle and Ellison will charge the Feds a fortune for the license fees.....

Yea you gotta believe Larry is foaming at the mouth at this. Selling them a named-user license and getting paid for every man, woman, and child in the US? Cha-Ching!!!

Red Hat? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295807)

No Microsoft? lol :)

Re:Red Hat? (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 9 months ago | (#45296241)

No open source, either.

Just say no (0, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 9 months ago | (#45295813)

It would be awesome if one or all of them declined on principle.

Re:Just say no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295947)

Their GOD is Money, So I would help be a Maker Fixer Government Contracter!

Re:Just say no (3, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | about 9 months ago | (#45296083)

In that scenario, we'd actually be worse off - the ones with principles wouldn't be working on it...

Re:Just say no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296085)

The NSA already knows they would say yes. But you are correct, it would be funny.

cavalry not calvary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295821)

As an Anonymous Coward, I am very concerned that proper language be used only when it places me in a position of higher authority.

The word for "soldiers who fought on horseback" is cavalry.

The word for "a hill near Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified" is calvary.

Re:cavalry not calvary (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 9 months ago | (#45295983)

As an Anonymous Coward, I am very concerned that proper language be used only when it places me in a position of higher authority.

The word for "soldiers who fought on horseback" is cavalry.

The word for "a hill near Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified" is calvary.

The word for "ice cream that's really expensive and super fucking creamy" is "Carvel".
The word for "fibrous green shit that children and guinea pigs eat" is "celery".
The word for "the poison center of a Milk Dud" is "caramel".
The word for "that shit you bruised when you gave your wife a raging tsunami" is "clavicle".

Google is sending the chaps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45295845)

...that "exploded in profanity" at the latest NSA disclosure to put that fix in.

Oracle! YES!! (2)

platypusfriend (1956218) | about 9 months ago | (#45295859)

Just kidding.

Re:Oracle! YES!! (3, Interesting)

jbengt (874751) | about 9 months ago | (#45296049)

I've had the misfortune of needing to use an Oracle system with a web interface to deal with a large client for construction management & billing. If that experience is any indication of how Oracle will fix the problem, the Feds would be better off keeping the very crappy existing system. (seriously)

Oracle? Seriously? (4, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | about 9 months ago | (#45295885)

I guess nobody in the decision making loop heard about Oracle's big California DMV fuck-up.

-jcr

Re:Oracle? Seriously? (1)

mozumder (178398) | about 9 months ago | (#45295935)

Does Oracle have any successful projects?

Re:Oracle? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296211)

Does Oracle have any successful projects?

Where have you been? Larry just hired a bunch from down under and won the America's Cup.

Re:Oracle? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296151)

My guess would be that healthcare.gov runs on top of an Oracle DB already, so Oracle probably has a few engineers that can be brought in to help identify and restructure problematic queries and/or tweak server settings to eek out a bit more performance. It's also a distinct possibility that the back end is in Java, so Oracle has a few knowledgeable Java engineers too.

Re:Oracle? Seriously? (1)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about 9 months ago | (#45296495)

My guess would be that healthcare.gov runs on top of an Oracle DB already, so Oracle probably has a few engineers that can be brought in to help identify and restructure problematic queries and/or tweak server settings to eek out a bit more performance. It's also a distinct possibility that the back end is in Java, so Oracle has a few knowledgeable Java engineers too.

Oracle's one-word answer for the DB -- Exadata...

There's no silver bullet (1)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about 9 months ago | (#45295911)

...and if there were, it probably wouldn't involve a violation of Brooks' Law [wikipedia.org] .

Brooks Law (5, Insightful)

mccrew (62494) | about 9 months ago | (#45295919)

Brooks Law [wikipedia.org] states "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later".

Re:Brooks Law (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 9 months ago | (#45296047)

Brooks Law states "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later".

+6 man, +6. That is exactly what first came to mind when they went for that "surge" mentaphor.

Second thing that comes to mind is that the surge didn't work, it just happened to coincide with a change of local Iraqi politics (locals got sick of extremists killing locals instead of just americans so they started outing the extremists so the americans finally knew who to kill).

Will they teach Economics? (1)

meburke (736645) | about 9 months ago | (#45295925)

I, for one, am glad to see government doing something right. They have fallen short of privatizing the site, but....

Will the three tech giants also teach Economics?

Re:Will they teach Economics? (5, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | about 9 months ago | (#45296205)

The government should have done it in-house, using directly hired citizens as developers and project managers. Use top developers that fully understand the selected technology. This site is something that will be changing a lot over many years, so continued staff where most developers already know how it's built would keep it upgraded.

You cant "fix" Socialism (0)

bricko (1052210) | about 9 months ago | (#45295931)

The only way to fix socialism is to root it out....by force if necessary....same as it has always been.

Re:You cant "fix" Socialism (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 months ago | (#45296039)

The only way to fix socialism is to root it out....by force if necessary....same as it has always been.

This message brought to you by Heinrich Himmler.

Wait, a tech problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296009)

And Elon Musk hasn't even been MENTIONED yet?!

Re:Wait, a tech problem? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 9 months ago | (#45296219)

And Elon Musk hasn't even been MENTIONED yet?!

He already designed a solution based on "a series of tubes", but it was dismissed as being impractical in the real world because it didn't involve enough contractors for implementation.

What is it originally coded in? (2)

deviated_prevert (1146403) | about 9 months ago | (#45296089)

The choice of these companies makes it obvious that it is not an asp.net fix. Being from Canada I have no idea what front end the site is using in the first place. But if it is not a based upon Microsoft style asp.net in the first place then you can bet that the choice of who gets government contracts will be effected in the future.

Here in Canada the government has completely sold out to Microsoft and in some cases if you need to access government services on the net it is all coded in asp.net especially the revenue Canada sites where you do your taxes. I find it hard to believe that a Microsoft software based contractor did not get the original site contracts in the USA in the first place. Again if the site is not fixed on time then you can bet Redmond will have a PR field day with this one, if it is Google, Oracle, and Red Hat fixing asp.net code then Microsoft is in real trouble to say the least. MORE ACCURATE DETAILS of what happened in the first place to the site and who coded it would help here Slashdot!

Re:What is it originally coded in? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296243)

Legalese. The syntax changes every few months.
A compiler has yet to be written.

And when it is working just fine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45296125)

Republitards have black cock all up in their ass.

huh? (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#45296137)

I can understand Google and Redhat... but Oracle? Talk about having a fox in the hen-house.

Too Many Cooks Spoil the Soup (3, Funny)

liwee (3407373) | about 9 months ago | (#45296185)

Enlisting JUST ONE of the tech giants would be more productive.

We all know... (2)

amightywind (691887) | about 9 months ago | (#45296209)

You can't fix stupid. End it, don't mend it!

Spread out the demand (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 9 months ago | (#45296245)

Why does everyone in the country need to use the website at once? Couldn't the problem be fixed with a little javascript function:

1. Enter your Social Security Number
2. Based on your Social Security number, your enrollment date is 1-Nov-2013 - 7-Nov-2013 or anytime after 31-Dec-2013. If you do not know or do not have an SSN, your enrollment date is after 15-Jan-2014. Click here to have an email reminder sent on your enrollment date.

They could instantly cut the website demand by 90% by dividing enrollments up by the last digit of the SSN of the primary enrollee.

Re:Spread out the demand (2)

tftp (111690) | about 9 months ago | (#45296391)

They could instantly cut the website demand by 90% by dividing enrollments up by the last digit of the SSN of the primary enrollee.

There aren't enough people as it is to pay double and triple for health plans that they don't need. I, personally, have no desire to even visit "that website," whatever URL it may have. I can pay for my own healthcare without involvement of moneychangers.

Re:Spread out the demand (2)

hawguy (1600213) | about 9 months ago | (#45296461)

They could instantly cut the website demand by 90% by dividing enrollments up by the last digit of the SSN of the primary enrollee.

There aren't enough people as it is to pay double and triple for health plans that they don't need. I, personally, have no desire to even visit "that website," whatever URL it may have. I can pay for my own healthcare without involvement of moneychangers.

Unless, of course you suffer a catastrophic illness or injury. I know someone whose husband slipped while getting out of the shower, he hit his head on the floor, and ended up with a brain injury and needing brain surgery and months of rehabilitation. So far it's cost over half a million dollars. He was in his 30's, a triathlete in perfect health. Fortunately, he had insurance and his wife was able to take 3 months leave to care for him and can support the household on her income.

Few people can afford a $500K medical bill yet society has chosen not to let people die even if they can't afford medical treatment. What's your solution for treating expensive illnesses for the uninsured? Let the seriously ill continue to be covered by hospitals and government? Or just let them die (or euthanize them if they can afford to pay for the euthanasia).

Google?.... (5, Funny)

tooyoung (853621) | about 9 months ago | (#45296289)

Crap, now the NSA will have a backdoor into the government!

Oracle's involved? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 9 months ago | (#45296301)

And we thought it was expensive and past deadline NOW.

Good Luck (1)

organgtool (966989) | about 9 months ago | (#45296393)

Google will spend all of their time working on tracking users, Oracle will insist on integrating dozens of Oracle products costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and RedHat will rewrite the system while removing the capability of running it over a network.

But in all seriousness, the reason this web site is in shambles is because the developers weren't given nearly enough time to implement a product this complex. And if years of development wasn't enough time, the government thinks that a few big tech companies can fix the problem in a single month? Even the best engineers will require weeks to understand how the system currently works, several more weeks coming up with a plan to fix what's broken, and months to implement the solution. This just goes to show how drastically people underestimate the complexity of software development. I wish those engineers the best of luck - they're being set up for failure.

Called in the calvary? (3, Funny)

goosebane (740956) | about 9 months ago | (#45296407)

Alright, who is getting crucified over this one?

Re:Called in the calvary? (0, Troll)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about 9 months ago | (#45296521)

Nobody. Obama and his cronies are un-touchable.

Do we know what the current architecture is? (1)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about 9 months ago | (#45296503)

Webserver? Middleware? Database? Hardware??
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>