US government is spending billions on old tech that barely works, says watchdog (http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-government-spends-billions-each-year-on-old-tech-that-barely-works-says-watchdog/)
Quote
The US government spent most of its annual IT budget last year on maintaining systems that, in some cases, are decades-old -- largely because of an "if it ain't broke" mentality.
But the problem is that some of the tech is broken, vulnerable, and out of date -- and it's starting to reach a breaking point.
A report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) shed light on how big the problem is. In a report published Wednesday (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-696T), the federal government spent $80 billion on IT systems in 2015, but $61 billion was spent on operations and maintenance. The rest was on development and enhancement, such as purchasing new systems or expanding existing ones.
[...]
how much of the $61 billion spent on operations and maintenance was spent on the "broken, vulnerable, and out of date" tech? (edit) and how is "vulnerable" and "out of date" defined?
1/4 of your tech budget on new development sounds pretty reasonable, especially for an organization that's been around for decades. I think that's way higher than my company.
Why do you homos not have avatars?
Quote from: LaCroix on May 25, 2016, 06:03:17 PM
how much of the $61 billion spent on operations and maintenance was spent on the "broken, vulnerable, and out of date" tech? (edit) and how is "vulnerable" and "out of date" defined?
they don't say. However:
QuoteThe situation is so bad that Chaffetz said some government agencies are still running Windows 3.1, an operating system that dates back more than two decades.
You can infer that it is a lot.
After finally seeing with my own two eyes how a major federal agency deals with IT projects--from selection to procurement, to go-live and support--staying with legacy systems actually seems to be the safer angle.
It is stunning to behold, actually.
I think that's the case for many big organizations, especially if IT is a necessary evil for them rather than the tool for earning revenues. It is also exacerbated if the organization has a lot of people who have worked there for decades. There aren't too many people out there who are willing to learn new things once they hit 40 or so, so if you propose replacing something that already works and they know how to use, they will immediately become hostile to the idea.
Quote from: viper37 on May 25, 2016, 06:11:16 PM
However:QuoteThe situation is so bad that Chaffetz said some government agencies are still running Windows 3.1, an operating system that dates back more than two decades.
You can infer that it is a lot.
I have a little birdie over on Nebraska Ave that said a certain agency of intelligence that is central still uses Lotus 123 for certain types of budgets; he wouldn't have believed it if he didn't see it for himself. That, and seeing a real, live Netscape in its own natural habitat.
woah! I used that in 1994-95 at the Canadian Federal governement :)
But that was cutting edge technology then :P
As long as it works. We have a lot of systems that date from the 80s. They still work. To some extent :ph34r: Developing new systems is a gigantic pain. First we need to seek approval from the legislature. Next we have to follow WTO rules in inviting tender. Then we have to deal with the contractor. When they inevitably fail, we have to pick up the pieces, like getting approval for more civil service posts so that we can do the job inhouse. This entire process takes like a decade or more. Compared with that, keeping the 80s system running is easier.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2016, 06:10:59 PM
Why do you homos not have avatars?
I don't understand what's the big deal with avatars. I turn them off, so I never see what your avatar is.
Avatars make it easier to identify posts, because a picture is easier to recognize than a word. It also broadcasts your persanolity to the rest of the forum.
I thought garbon was a girl when I first got here
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2016, 07:57:02 PM
Avatars make it easier to identify posts, because a picture is easier to recognize than a word. It also broadcasts your persanolity to the rest of the forum.
Your personality is "Duffman"?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2016, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2016, 07:57:02 PM
Avatars make it easier to identify posts, because a picture is easier to recognize than a word. It also broadcasts your persanolity to the rest of the forum.
Your personality is "Duffman"?
:cool:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2016, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2016, 07:57:02 PM
Avatars make it easier to identify posts, because a picture is easier to recognize than a word. It also broadcasts your persanolity to the rest of the forum.
Your personality is "Duffman"?
My personality is definitely granite and ice. :cool:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2016, 06:47:47 PM
After finally seeing with my own two eyes how a major federal agency deals with IT projects--from selection to procurement, to go-live and support--staying with legacy systems actually seems to be the safer angle.
It is stunning to behold, actually.
The justice system in Alberta is all run on this old COBOL-written, CLI-only piece of software called JOIN. It's fairly powerful in it's own way - a skilled person can pull all kinds of information out of it. But it reminds me when in the mid-90s I worked for AECL and had to use a VAX terminal - all about remembering obscure text commands and keystroke combinations in order to do anything.
As I understand it they would love to move away from it, but the data-migration issues make it nearly impossible. So either they break all backwards-compatibility (because right now it keeps records from today all the way back to the mid-90s), or try and maintain two simultaneous systems at the same time.
I can see why they keep chugging along with JOIN, but the necessity to move to a more modern system is only going to grow over time.
I think the ratio is similar in all big organisations that don't use software as their main means of production. Replacing IT assets is expensive and it often just does not make economic sense to replace a system that does its job reasonably well.
That said I am currently working on replacing a 25 year old legacy application. One of the reasons we do it now is that the experts are "dying out" fast.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2016, 09:37:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2016, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2016, 07:57:02 PM
Avatars make it easier to identify posts, because a picture is easier to recognize than a word. It also broadcasts your persanolity to the rest of the forum.
Your personality is "Duffman"?
My personality is definitely granite and ice. :cool:
My personality is ... oh wait. :(
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2016, 09:42:50 AM
I can see why they keep chugging along with JOIN, but the necessity to move to a more modern system is only going to grow over time.
that's what happens when you wait too long.
had they performed smaller upgrades over the years, it is likely they would have had tools to preserve compatibility with the data. 30 years later? Pretty hard to find.
LOL, Shareholder Value, Inc., didn't give two shits about preserving data compatibility, and only wished legacy people actually would die off. It was the fact that every year the System 390 mainframe and its DB2 database continued to work flawlessly was one more year of having to employ the mainframe team--and nothing made the CFO see pure red more than the realization that vested employees from the '90s still walked the earth receiving a salary.
Good god, mainframe. :bleeding: It works well when your definitions of what "works" hasn't changed in 30 years, and never will. God forbid if you're the kind of employee who actually is motivated enough to want to improve things, and have to report to people with Seedy's mindset. That will knock such silly notions out of you in a hurry, if you're not smart enough to seek new employment soon.
Hey, capital projects require capital allocations. Don't want to spend the money to replace the mainframe? Don't bitch about spending the money to maintain it. Isn't that what the IG's report is all about: throwing new money at old solutions?
Don't worry, DG, it all had a happy ending: those mainframe guys got their just desserts from Murders & Acquisitions.
LOL, "the kind of employee motivated enough to want to improve things", too funny.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2016, 02:10:32 PM
LOL, "the kind of employee motivated enough to want to improve things", too funny.
Yes, they do exist. Until they get tested by the wise old cynics, then their numbers start decreasing.
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2016, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2016, 02:10:32 PM
LOL, "the kind of employee motivated enough to want to improve things", too funny.
Yes, they do exist. Until they get tested by the wise old cynics, then their numbers start decreasing.
If only you were there to pull all that capital project money out of your ass to replace that mainframe. Because, you know, nobody ever tried.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2016, 02:18:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2016, 02:14:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2016, 02:10:32 PM
LOL, "the kind of employee motivated enough to want to improve things", too funny.
Yes, they do exist. Until they get tested by the wise old cynics, then their numbers start decreasing.
If only you were there to pull all that capital project money out of your ass to replace that mainframe. Because, you know, nobody ever tried.
He could have done it. After all, he was in a Capital Project Club in college.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2016, 09:42:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2016, 06:47:47 PM
After finally seeing with my own two eyes how a major federal agency deals with IT projects--from selection to procurement, to go-live and support--staying with legacy systems actually seems to be the safer angle.
It is stunning to behold, actually.
The justice system in Alberta is all run on this old COBOL-written, CLI-only piece of software called JOIN. It's fairly powerful in it's own way - a skilled person can pull all kinds of information out of it. But it reminds me when in the mid-90s I worked for AECL and had to use a VAX terminal - all about remembering obscure text commands and keystroke combinations in order to do anything.
As I understand it they would love to move away from it, but the data-migration issues make it nearly impossible. So either they break all backwards-compatibility (because right now it keeps records from today all the way back to the mid-90s), or try and maintain two simultaneous systems at the same time.
I can see why they keep chugging along with JOIN, but the necessity to move to a more modern system is only going to grow over time.
In your case, there would be significant advantages to society if all backward compatibility were lost. Think of all the clean slates. :)
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2016, 07:57:02 PM
Avatars make it easier to identify posts, because a picture is easier to recognize than a word. It also broadcasts your persanolity to the rest of the forum.
If you hear Marti tell it, I'm projecting that I'm an ISIS murderess. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2016, 01:55:45 PM
Good god, mainframe. :bleeding: It works well when your definitions of what "works" hasn't changed in 30 years, and never will.
Do you think that life in Alpha Complex can be improved?
Quote from: Zanza on May 26, 2016, 10:13:23 AM
That said I am currently working on replacing a 25 year old legacy application. One of the reasons we do it now is that the experts are "dying out" fast.
So are the hackers who know how to manipulate those old systems. Maybe they are actually more secure. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 28, 2016, 03:21:55 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 26, 2016, 10:13:23 AM
That said I am currently working on replacing a 25 year old legacy application. One of the reasons we do it now is that the experts are "dying out" fast.
So are the hackers who know how to manipulate those old systems. Maybe they are actually more secure. :P
That's one of the best arguments I have heard about keeping old systems. I am going to steal it to justify not upgrading stuff.