In the long run, it does hurt. The practice has been --as long as I've been around here anyway-- to wait until the last minute before a product goes end-of-service-life, then move up two steps to something which is 3-4 years old but still 2-3 years from end-of-service. Those proposing anything newer than 2 years are gently humoured then forcibly medicated.
The problem is largely the split in accountability: those in the front-line of apps operation are entirely separated from the realities of system support. So long as they have 100% uptime, they don't care how ancient or rickety the equipment is underneath. And when something breaks, it's not their fault 'cause after all they only run the apps not maintain the infrastructure. Our internal accounting procedures require the front-line folks to purchase the equipment so their numbers look great when upgrades are pushed off 1-2 years.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-09 12:17 am (UTC)then forcibly medicated.The problem is largely the split in accountability: those in the front-line of apps operation are entirely separated from the realities of system support. So long as they have 100% uptime, they don't care how ancient or rickety the equipment is underneath. And when something breaks, it's not their fault 'cause after all they only run the apps not maintain the infrastructure. Our internal accounting procedures require the front-line folks to purchase the equipment so their numbers look great when upgrades are pushed off 1-2 years.
It's quite dysfunctional, hence my job search.