Search results

yup, fair enough

Depends on the techies. Someone coding or configuring a system should absolutely know the business requirement. Edit: I agree that he is a patsy though.

Part of his job should be to understand 'why' though as that will influence the solution. Maybe part of the issue here is that the system was being changed without understanding 'why' and having unintended consequences as a result. Any good system designer/engineer will know the business reasons...

There were issues with transactions being logged against terminals not in use and issues with transactions not being rolled back correctly when they failed (ie debiting accounts but not crediting others) were the two that I remember most, but there were loads and loads.

Government were complicit in the sacking of Second Sight. BBC have obtained the unredacted minutes from "Project Sparrow": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68079300

Early 90's I designed and specified a system at home over a weekend, we started coding on the monday, testing started 3 weeks later and the system implemented 3 weeks after that. In all there were several thousand lines of code (COBOL). About a week later the feasibility study was released...

It does but code also has to be easy to understand for support reasons. Multiplying by -1 is potentially more obvious to someone reading that code for the first time.

The code underneath that example is magnificently bad

That last bug they talked about, it took them 2 months to find the actual problem. Any system that takes that long to find the issue is clearly far too complicated or there was a massive issue with prioritisation of bug fixes.

This bloke was originally a Salesman so his answers to bug fixes are going to be interesting. The first bug highlighted was not fixed for 5.5 years!

Apparently the same Fujitsu guy is in front of the Inquiry today, so I hope he has done some homework as "I don't know" is not going to cut it.

Any of them really. What was apparent is that neither of them had a clue what had gone on in the past (they have both been in post since 2019) and had made little effort to try to find out. There were some interesting and searching questions asked that made them both look like fools. But...

What did you think of the questions that he and other MPs asked of the CEO of the Post Office and the European Director of Fujitsu at this select committee?

That was at yesterday's select committee not the Post Office inquiry.

Oh it can't surely? It is obvious that someone, somewhere made the decision to carry on with the system when it was full of bugs. Plus someone okayed the functionality that allowed Fujitsu employees to fiddle with live accounts. On that last point, I thought it was the law that there was an...

Indeed. The faults were clearly being logged and someone either decided not to inform the Post Office correctly of the nature of the faults or, more likely, someone at the Post Office made the decision to carry on with the system despite of the errors. Businesses make that sort of decision every...

There will be an act of parliament to quash their convictions. Details to be announced after PMQs.