Video download link | md5sum 517c825e6b2b4ff488a8c7557ed7b5ce Management Always Right Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0



Summary: Sirius 'Open Source' has a seemingly very common problem; managers cannot be held accountable and even when shown that they failed at something, instead of apologising or taking actions against themselves they resort to accusing/blaming the reporter

TWELVE years ago the management at Sirius was a lot better. I was there. I saw it. Managers were typically technical people (like programmers and sysadmins). Things have changed though.

In recent years managers were just self-styled 'managers' or "professional managers" with experience in babysitting (literally).

"If you work in a company that behaves in this way, consider leaving."As noted here a few hours ago, bringing a concrete example to the table, managers had made bad technical decisions and then refused to admit that. The evidence does not matter! It's all about one's pride. It's about protecting brands^*.

Moreover, in that same example, it should be clear that staff wasn't properly informed or trained; then, a falsified timeline was constructed for post hoc-type cover-up.

This example is about a year old, so in relative terms it is recent. If you work in a company that behaves in this way, consider leaving. Things won't improve as this sort of attitude repels geeks. ⬆ _______ ^* At Sirius, Google and AWS/Amazon were stubbornly defended no matter what (also Slack and Clownflare to a lesser degree). Readers of Techrights would likely be going one step ahead, correctly guessing some companies (not Sirius!) or even universities/governments (public sector, accountable to their citizens) which made a move to Microsoft would be 'religiously' defending bad decisions/choices (bribes often play a role, as Microsoft whistleblowers have repeatedly demonstrated in the recent past).

And whenever things fail, as always happens (Microsoft products are even defective by design), Microsoft just pushes them more Microsoft as the supposed solution. More sales! The culprits who brought Microsoft to the business/government want to "prove" it'll work; so they pay Microsoft some more, albeit not at a personal expense. It's a vicious cycle. Everyone loses, except Microsoft. And if only everything ran on Microsoft, they insist, things would be 'optimal' (until the next ransomware attack).

As an associate put it (to paraphrase), the problem is always that there wasn't sufficient faith in Microsoft and that is always solved by buying TheNextVersion(tm) and MORE of it. For decades the cycle has been the same, namely it'd work if only they could achieve 100% Microsoft integration. Once that happens, the target goal posts move, and it would work if only they could purchase TheNextVersion, and if that happens before they run out of money, then the goals posts move again. At that point it becomes, it'd work if only they had the right Microsoft training. Then by that time, the $TheNextVersion has become $ThePreviousVersion and that part of the cycle starts again. And yet they still blame outright collapses on "Linux people" and your average worker agrees to believe that excuse. The problem is not new, it as it goes back to the 1990s. But for a recent example look at Aaron Swartz's blog post about Conde Nast and why he had no choice but to walk out the door and not look back.