6 Jan
2008
6 Jan
'08
10:25 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
In defense of programmers, whether or not the programmer(s) failed to
do an adequate job depends far more on their employer's policies and
schedules than on the programmers' skill and experience. Mostly,
companies seem to go with whatever works, even if it isn't perfect, or
have a non-technical management type dictate precisely and strictly
what a programmer is to do, regardless of the potential consequences.
Or, rather, that /was/ a common policy. It's only slightly improved,
though, in all the years since.
==
jd
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, madodel wrote:
It's nigh impossible to provide proof, evidence, etc., when one has
"eyes only" access, not even carrying a camera around, "just in
case".
For ATM's at least, no one's going to let you have anything as
proof. If anyone feels otherwise I am sure the FBI would certainly be
happy to assist in disabusing such silly notions.
I've been using OS/2 since version 1.3.
I'm fairly well acquainted with
its capabilities. Yes I can be wrong and maybe you saw what you think you
saw, but all you have is a story. Where is your proof other then that you
think you saw it was OS/2? I can't prove a negative, but you should be
able to prove that it did happen.
You're certainly welcome to doubt whether he was right, and/or think that
he was mistaken. But we rarely put up a "burden of proof".
but never at
an OS/2 prompt. And as I also posted, if the original ATM
code programmer had known what they were doing then the program itself
should have been set as the shell, so no command prompt should have ever
been attainable.
"IF . . . had known what they were doing"
I don't doubt that you could write some extraordinarily robust code.
But, do you assert that Diebold knows what they are doing?