Hello Mark,
I don't think RedHat, Linux or the tools they used to create this mess will be given much thought. There is a bit of blame to spread around, not the least of which is changing the plan after much was almost finished and not having time to do testing. The track record of the company writing the project left a lot to be desired. I suspect that many on this list could have done a better job at execution of the site and database engine. Certainly part of the problem is those driving the project at the top level had not a clue how these things work, or even what the rules and guidelines were from the start. Even a lack of understanding economics when the initial plan was being put together has a lot to do with why this won't work. Fixing the web site and database issues is possible. Fixing the plan long term is not looking good. As Curt mentions, the long term support is going to be an expensive nightmare. That is true for the software and the legislation. Dave On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 09:31 -0500, Mark J. Bailey wrote: > Well, that is kind of my concern. If Red Hat didn't initially have a dog > directly in the fight except that the contractors may have selected Red > Hat Enterprise Linux and/or JBOSS, whatever, for the project, no amount of > money might be worth the cost of being dragged into that mess after the > fact only to be inadvertently forced to public share the blame (like Curt > suggested). Not being as big as Oracle who can weather a good amount of > negativity, Red Hat could come away permanently scarred in the public > (business) world. Not too good for Linux's reputation. Thank God Linux is > infinitely more than just Red Hat! > > Again, I really don't know what/why they were pulled in, so am hoping to > learn more over the coming days. It would be really interesting to see if > Red Hat's presence might have anything to do with Oracle's Linux being > essentially based off Red Hat's. Oracle may be why they are involved. I > definitely got to Google on it some this weekend. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nlug-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto:nlug-talk@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf Of David R. Wilson > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 8:43 AM > To: nlug-talk@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [nlug] Red Hat at HealthCare.GOV > > Hello Mark, > > Doesn't surprise me a bit. Obviously the problem is not RedHat, but the > plan for the software, testing and other things that should have happened > and didn't. Another problem was the directive to gather all of the > information before allowing a search for insurance. That was due to the > realization that no one would buy it (or enter their data) if they knew > what the prices were. > > It is a train wreck, with a worse train wreck for the initial plan. I > read some of the bill. I was sick by the time I hit page 70, and figured > no one in their right mind would even consider passing this mess. > > Dave > > > > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 07:07 -0500, Mark J. Bailey wrote: > > Anyone else find it interesting (and a bit worrisome too) to see Red > > Hat so publically displayed as one of the major tech firms being > > rushed in for Obama's and HHS's "tech surge" to salvage > > HealthCare.GOV? On one hand, who would have thought back in the 90s > > that one day a Linux company would stride alongside the likes of > > Oracle in the mainstream media? On the other hand, however, the likely > > hood that 6 weeks will fix things is anything but certain, so there > > could be a lot of egg-on-face for Red Hat if they (all parties > > involved) can't deliver the fix by the (unrealistic) deadline. No > > doubt, like many of you, I have bitten off my fair share of "damn, I > > wish I hadn't agreed to this" projects, so it will be interesting to > > see what comes of it. I'm sure it's out there somewhere, but does > > anyone know what aspect would have called for Red Hat to be brought in > > (short of Linux servers themselves being utilized with > > HealthCare.GOV)? > > > > > > -- > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "NLUG" group. > > To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To > > unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk > > +unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en > > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "NLUG" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > an email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "NLUG" group. > To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To > unsubscribe from this group, send email to > nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "NLUG" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
