| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Confirms Data Recovery for Sidekick Users | |
|
||
| Time: 05:16 EST/10:16 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Press Release | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
On behalf of Microsoft, I want to apologize for the recent problems with the Sidekick service and give you an update on the steps we have taken to resolve these problems.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:25:09 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 10/15/2009 7:42:56 AM |
|
So it was a unices at the back end and it appears it was Microsoft doing the heavy lifting to clean it up.
There is also a rumor that the devastation was intentional and not just a firmware update that had gone badly. If true, I hope that the responsible party is never allowed to work in IT again. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/15/2009 8:02:02 AM |
| #1: Why do you continue to characterize the incident as a UNIX failure that could only be fixed by MS and Windows? You know this is patently untrue. If MS is to be believed, a hardware failure took everything down. If the rumours are to be believed, malicious action took everything down. Yet here you are again with your bargle about UNIX falling down and Microsoft to the rescue. It almost appears like you're trying to use a parkkker-esque deflection technique to focus attention away from the core issue of a Microsoft cloud service puking. Next thing you'll be telling me the hardware wouldn't have failed if it was running Windows. |
| #3 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 10/15/2009 9:24:55 AM |
|
Was the platform running a Unices? Yes! Did Microsoft step up at every level (first indicating how bad it MIGHT be and with absolute candor) and the work to recover user data? Yes!
Now tell me what part of anything I said was not true? If it had been a Windows environment, permissions would have been far more granular and policy based with specific users (like backup operators) constrained as to what they can do and under what authority and auditing. Similarly, continuity jobs and commercial software would have provided the means to verify continuity jobs and finally, procedures would have required each to report all such activity - including the results of jobs, restoration tests, and corrective actions where necessary. This is the exact type of environment we run and any errors MUST BE addressed before any other work may proceed. We'll see what all the facts are soon enough, but I remind you, earlier you stated that there was no way that one could know a Unices back end was involved - I offered that it likely was and what some of the challenges might have been. Now it is revealed that it was in fact a Unices back end. It is also most likely that the other assumptions I asserted might have been made by the operators, may also prove to be valid. Such matters are not always driven by what a platform can do (like a Unices), but what the people running it CAN do with the tools they have. Based upon what we have seen and do - this is the bases for what I share here. You can wish all you want that *nix are the end all answer. That will not make it so. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/15/2009 10:01:30 AM |
|
#3: Was the platform running a Unices? Yes!
I still have not seen any mention of UNIX whatsoever in all of this. It is you that keeps bringing it up. Plus, if it was a hardware failure then the OS is completely irrelevant. If it had happened on a Windows system, you'd be bending over backwards to make sure everyone knows that it was hardware and not Windows. Did Microsoft step up at every level (first indicating how bad it MIGHT be and with absolute candor) and the work to recover user data? Yes! I should bloody well hope that MS stepped up since it was their company that borked everything to begin with. You make it sound like they're doing everyone a favour when the onus was on them to begin with. Now tell me what part of anything I said was not true? Your insinuation that UNIX was at fault is what I took exception to. We still don't have any facts but that isn't stopping you from wild, inappropriate conjecture. If it had been a Windows environment, permissions would have been far more granular and policy based with specific users (like backup operators) constrained as to what they can do and under what authority and auditing. Marvelous stuff, but what do your ultra-granular Windows permissions do when the SAN barfs? We'll see what all the facts are soon enough, but I remind you, earlier you stated that there was no way that one could know a Unices back end was involved - I offered that it likely was and what some of the challenges might have been. Now it is revealed that it was in fact a Unices back end. I don't see that revealed anywhere in any of the reports I've read so far, and like I said earlier, even if UNIX was Danger's platform of choice, that is supplementary to the fact that there was a hardware failure. Your attempts to tie the failure to UNIX is shallow and laughable. For all we know, MS tried to migrate the Danger backend from UNIX to Windows and hosed everything. That sounds plausible to me based on some of their other attempts to get from UNIX to Windows. Hotmail anyone? You can wish all you want that *nix are the end all answer. That will not make it so. I don't wish any such thing. You are the one constantly telling us that Windows is the solution to everything. Tell that to the London Stock Exchange. I'm merely pointing out that you're gassing (again) about things you know not of. |
| #5 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 10/15/2009 11:13:13 AM |
|
rant away, Latch... does not change the fact about what I have said here... I have seen *nix based solutions fall on their butts and fall big and also seen Windows based solutions solve the challenges and account for them.
And yes, the reporting does state that it was *nix based. When a SAN would fail, I'd resort to DTMF, or AIT tapes. When those failed, I'd resort to off-site, online archives. If the metal failed I'd resort to an ASR and recover on new hardware. |
| #6 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 10/15/2009 11:24:36 AM |
|
Another article states "It was an Oracle dB and Sun SAN solution that got a bad firmware update and the backup failed.”
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=4245 So Lloyd was right. This post was edited by rxcall on Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 11:25. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/15/2009 11:36:34 AM |
|
#5: Heh, "rant" eh? I don't see it, but then again I don't see things that aren't there. What I do see is you desperately trying to get the heat off Microsoft by mentioning UNIX every chance you get, as if that was the problem. And like I said earlier, if it was running on Windows boxes, you'd be bleating from the rooftops that it had nothing to do with the OS. Why are the details so sketchy? What is MS hiding by not disclosing what happened? I don't see Microsoft blaming UNIX. I don't see anyone other than you even mentioning UNIX. I don't remember you condemning Windows when it took the LSE down last year. You're apparently very selective in your finger-pointing. As for your "facts", nothing you've said has been corroborated by anyone. That makes it "opinion" and not "fact". You must be one of those guys that's never wrong, so everything you say is a "fact". People who don't know any better will listen to you, but eventually you come up against someone who knows their stuff and shows you for the poseur you sometimes are (kabuki says hi!). Once the details come out , if they ever do, I'll await your retraction. Oh wait, by then this thread will be long gone, and if I press you on it, you'll resort to telling me I misinterpreted what you said, or try to twist it around with your usual heapin' helping of bafflegab.
|
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/15/2009 11:54:36 AM |
|
#6: So Lloyd was right.
He was right that Danger runs UNIX. Everything else he has said is supposition and guesswork. It was an Oracle db so it must be Oracle's fault. Wait, it was running on Sun hardware so obviously it's Sun's fault. Wait, Hitachi touched it so it's Hitachi's fault. All of the preceding are absurd, of course, yet Ketchum maintains that it's the fault of UNIX. Do you believe that? Does anyone believe that? Why does he keep saying that? The article you linked to blamed it on a wonky firmware upgrade. Last I checked, firmware was a component of hardware. If it was the fault of UNIX, would MS not be using that to highlight how Windows is a better choice? |
| #9 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 10/15/2009 1:12:23 PM |
|
Latch, no, I did not speak as to ONE specific reason, but rather what I have seen in large and small enterprises where assumptions about Unices are made - context, context, context.
Now, are there inherent limitations to a Unices? You bet there are and some of them are better addressed in Windows shops. Some would argue the reverse is true - I would argue the reverse was true, but has not been in a really long time. Further, the number of people that know the *nix well enough to manage them properly are too few and too costly and the truth is, Windows does a lot for the admin in some contexts but more often it makes them more effective because they are better integrated. We'll pull the thread back up and Chris and I can debate some more - assuming you're talking about "standards" again. Laughable given how practical considerations bump up against them and how they are always evolving (if you want to call it that). |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/15/2009 2:00:51 PM |
|
#9: Latch, no, I did not speak as to ONE specific reason, but rather what I have seen in large and small enterprises where assumptions about Unices are made - context, context, context.
You're not going to wriggle out of it this time. Here is your direct quote from #1: So it was a unices at the back end and it appears it was Microsoft doing the heavy lifting to clean it up. You're implying that UNIX had something to do with it or you wouldn't have mentioned it at all. That much is obvious considering you're always trying to contrast UNIX vs. Windows as a slam-dunk for Windows every time. Meanwhile, the press is ravaging MS for distancing themselves from the problem but taking credit for the recovery -- kind of like what you're doing here. Imagine, Microsoft and Ketchum singing from the same hymn book. What a surprise. We'll pull the thread back up and Chris and I can debate some more - assuming you're talking about "standards" again. It's there waiting for you. You have a habit of disappearing when the debate isn't going well for you. Convenient "away on business" excuse and all that. |
| #11 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 10/15/2009 2:35:46 PM |
|
Seems Lloyd was right. I don't think he ever claimed "UNIX is responsible," just that it was UNIX on the backend, and not properly backed up--not that UNIX cannot be backed up successfully, but that it wasn't.
But there it is... UNIX was on the back end. So what? It means little, really, other than you can screw things up regardless of the platform (UNIX doesn't magically make things work). And that all these recent outages of *nix-based properties can tell folks like Steven J. Vaughan Nichols that they can put a sock in it when they draw the same conclusion on a Windows-based property ("it's Windows-based, therefore the issue is Windows"). It should make folks think twice about "cloud computuing," though, regardless of the platform. At least you have some control over the priorities in recovery from a disaster you own. :P |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/15/2009 3:17:07 PM |
|
#11: I've asked it a few times now without getting any answer: why did he mention UNIX at all other than to insinuate that it was a failing of UNIX? Remember that this came from the man that is forever trumpeting Windows over the (according to him) inferior UNIX. For example, if a cop shows up at your door and says "There was a murder last night at the gallery by a guy with red hair. You have red hair. Weren't you at the gallery last night?" He's not directly accusing you of murder, but neither is he simply interested in your social calendar nor is he making an offhand remark about your hair colour.
Insinuate: 1 a : to introduce (as an idea) gradually or in a subtle, indirect, or covert way <insinuate doubts into a trusting mind> b : to impart or suggest in an artful or indirect way : imply <I resent what you're insinuating> |
| #13 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 10/15/2009 5:47:10 PM |
| Starting to look a little desperate (from my perspective). He mentioned a specific type of problem that he's seen on more than one occasion. Whether that's the case or not (and likely we'll never know those details), what's the matter with that? Danger was acquired. The Sidekick uses Java. Not exactly a far stretch of the imagination to believe they were running some kind of *nix on the backend. They couldn't recover from backup. Lloyd pointed out that he's seen this type of thing before, and mentions how he's fixed it. I don't see the problem here. |
| #14 By 15406 (99.240.77.173) at 10/15/2009 6:03:25 PM |
| #13: I just call it as I see it. He's always slagging UNIX, and then he repeatedly mentions how they run UNIX when it was totally irrelevant to the story of a firmware upgrade borking the SAN. He owns a Microsoft-to-the-hilt shop, yet he can only think of data catastrophe examples that involve UNIX? |
| #15 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 10/15/2009 11:25:29 PM |
| Their firmware upgrade caused *both* their online and backup databases to go away? I don't know... that seems like very poor architecture planning (though it's possible). That was speculation, though... just as much as Lloyd's. He also speculated it could be sabotage. Speculation based on his experience is pretty normal, I think. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:25:09 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
