The patch release needs patching



  • I was working on a 3rd party commercial system today (from a company that brings good things to life) and knew that I had to update to the latest version of their updates (actually called a SIM - Software Improvement Module, but that is another WTF). So I logged into the product support website to verify what the latest SIM was, noted it down and then called tech support anyway

    You see this company creates SIMs almost monthly, but the SIMs themselves only get released to the support website on a quarterly basis - note that this is after QA etc is performed. I knew that the latest SIM on the website probably wasn't the latest as I had an even later one, but I wasn't sure if the SIM i had was truly the latest. To get the truly latest SIMs you have to call tech support and get them to send you an email with a link to an FTP site where you can download the file. It truly is amazing how retarded this approach is.

    Yeah I could have skipped checking the website and just called tech support, but I wasn't sure if miracles had happened (or if a new Service Pack - not a SIM - had been released)



  •  Is it just me or does that post seem



  • @Heron said:

     Is it just me or does that post seem

    You know, I though the



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @Heron said:

     Is it just me or does that post seem

    You know, I though the
    We've already done this one!



  • @OzPeter said:

    I logged into the product support website to verify what the latest SIM was, noted it down and then called tech support anyway

    [ . . . ] 

    You see this company creates SIMs almost monthly, but the SIMs themselves only get released to the support website on a quarterly basis

    [ . . . ]

    I wasn't sure if the SIM i had was truly the latest. To get the truly latest SIMs you have to call tech support and get them to send you an email with a link to an FTP site where you can download the file.

    So.... are the ftp links formulated according to any easily-predictable convention that you can tell?  Maybe you can skip one more step if you're lucky...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @DaveK said:

    @OzPeter said:

    I wasn't sure if the SIM i had was truly the latest. To get the truly latest SIMs you have to call tech support and get them to send you an email with a link to an FTP site where you can download the file.

    So.... are the ftp links formulated according to any easily-predictable convention that you can tell?  Maybe you can skip one more step if you're lucky...

    Given the WTF quotient of the update process, it's entirely probable that you could just use an FTP client and go look to see what's recent.



  • @PJH said:

    @DaveK said:
    @OzPeter said:

    I wasn't sure if the SIM i had was truly the latest. To get the truly latest SIMs you have to call tech support and get them to send you an email with a link to an FTP site where you can download the file.

    So.... are the ftp links formulated according to any easily-predictable convention that you can tell?  Maybe you can skip one more step if you're lucky...

    Given the WTF quotient of the update process, it's entirely probable that you could just use an FTP client and go look to see what's recent.
    As I understand him, he needs tech support to tell him what the most recent patch is that passed QA. I'm guessing that there is also non-QA approved stuff on there.



  • @RogerWilco said:

    @PJH said:
    @DaveK said:
    @OzPeter said:
    I wasn't sure if the SIM i had was truly the latest. To get the truly latest SIMs you have to call tech support and get them to send you an email with a link to an FTP site where you can download the file.
    So.... are the ftp links formulated according to any easily-predictable convention that you can tell?  Maybe you can skip one more step if you're lucky...
    Given the WTF quotient of the update process, it's entirely probable that you could just use an FTP client and go look to see what's recent.
    As I understand him, he needs tech support to tell him what the most recent patch is that passed QA. I'm guessing that there is also non-QA approved stuff on there.

    Or things that had been deliberately with a virus.



  • @derula said:

    Or things that had been deliberately with a virus.
     

    Or the porn, obviously.



  • @DaveK said:

    So.... are the ftp links formulated according to any easily-predictable convention that you can tell?  Maybe you can skip one more step if you're lucky..

    In my rush to rid myself of the bad memory of this WTF, I forgot to add that the link I receive is almost a "one time generated" link, and you only get to see the one file you are supposed to see. This is so that you can have commercially secret client files floating around on the "public" site, and not give away client data

    So for this product the latest patch had a name like 30SP1_1912583201. The link I received for this patch was: https://[sitedomain]/fs/v.aspx?v=8970658b6162aaa99d6d (And I just slapped myself, its not really FTP, its an HTTP transfer .. I was tired when I wrote this yesterday.)

    Oh and to add another WTF, for some of the other products by the same company, you may have a patch labelled XYZ_123456 and another one labeled XYZ_67890, and the XYZ_123456 is the most recent patch



  • @RogerWilco said:

    As I understand him, he needs tech support to tell him what the most recent patch is that passed QA. I'm guessing that there is also non-QA approved stuff on there.
    Putting in that bit about QA approved patches was meant highlight that the tech support guys were handing me tested patches rather than reaching into some secret directory and pulling out patches that had not yet passed through the QA process. I had in my mind that if I did not say "QA approved" that people would jump on me for installing non QA approved patches. TRWTF was meant to be the time lag between a patch being QA approved and ending up on the public tech support website.



  • @OzPeter said:

    Oh and to add another WTF, for some of the other products by the same company, you may have a patch labelled XYZ_123456 and another one labeled XYZ_67890, and the XYZ_123456 is the most recent patch
     

    No WTF here, Nvidia and ATI do it all the time...

     

    As long as it's used to show something different (e.g. security and bugfixes or new fearues) I think it's acceptable. 



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @Heron said:

     Is it just me or does that post seem

    You know, I though the
     

    Maybe the OP was talking with someone, and mentioned Candle Jack partway through writ


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.