Re: GFI acknowledgement of screw up

  • From: "William Lefkovics" <william@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'[ExchangeList]'" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:24:48 -0800

To put it another way, if the company that protects your email and network
have to 'learn' what happens when they don't do sufficient testing for
updates, do you really want them protecting you?   Potential ramifications
(e.g. data loss) of insufficient testing for software updates are obvious,
regardless of the level of actual testing performed.  

Have a great weekend!

"Once in a while, I'm standing here, doing something. And I think, 'What in
the world am I doing here?' It's a big surprise." - Donald Rumsfield, QA
Manager, GFI


-----Original Message-----
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:50 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] Re: GFI acknowledgement of screw up

http://www.MSExchange.org/

>>Most of them can be prevented. I would rather focus on that.  If GFI 
>>had
of tested the updates from BitDefender before allowing their clients to
utilize the update as part of their software package, then this most likely
would have been prevented.

My point is that this is not news.  They know this.  There is no lesson to
learn.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Danny [mailto:nocmonkey@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 12:35 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] Re: GFI acknowledgement of screw up

http://www.MSExchange.org/

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:56:02 -0800, William Lefkovics
<william@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> http://www.MSExchange.org/
> 
> I don't think there is a true lesson here.

True Lesson: Test your products, especially when you rely on third party
components.  Neglecting to do so will lead to similar problems like GFI has
just experienced.
 
> Mistakes happen.

Most of them can be prevented. I would rather focus on that.  If GFI had of
tested the updates from BitDefender before allowing their clients to utilize
the update as part of their software package, then this most likely would
have been prevented.

> For some that mistake is using GFI.

I am sure that they will be a better company as a result of this error.

> For GFI, the mistake is obvious and not a 'lesson' that needed learning.

The mistake - after the fact - is of course, obvious to GFI, but it would
have been prevented had they been more diligent with testing their products
and the components they utilize.  Therefore, this aforementioned 'lesson'
'needing learning'.

...D


------------------------------------------------------
List Archives: http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
Exchange FAQ: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=FAQ
------------------------------------------------------
Other Internet Software Marketing Sites:
World of Windows Networking: http://www.windowsnetworking.com Leading
Network Software Directory: http://www.serverfiles.com
No.1 ISA Server Resource Site: http://www.isaserver.org Windows Security
Resource Site: http://www.windowsecurity.com/ Network Security Library:
http://www.secinf.net/ Windows 2000/NT Fax Solutions:
http://www.ntfaxfaq.com
------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to this MSEXchange.org Discussion List as:
william@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe visit
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Report abuse to listadmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Other related posts: