<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Time to improve application deployment ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T17:56:24-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The last time I used OIC...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2250589]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... it was still fairly miserable, if I recall. Unfortunately, Oracle has really poor documentation, and it is a real trick to figure out what you actually need to install to get your app to connect to a server, vs. all of the potential options. It is kind of like going to Sun's Java page, and trying to figure out what you actually need to download and install to try programming in Java... too many packages, not enough explanation.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2250589]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:44:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Oracle instant client]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2250498]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hi,If you use Oracle 10g and OCI support is enough then use Oracle Instant Client, where it is a file copy to install client software. On the server side I think there is no way to avoid it. If you use Oracle 10g XE (the free version of Oracle RDBMS) then it uses some kind of Windows installer, no Java Tamas Szecsy]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2250498]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[tszecsy@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:24:36 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[That's a birdie on Oracle's course...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247976]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... in other words, better than par!I have always been bewildered at Oracle's market share, considering that their software is only of good quality at the basic level of stability and performance. Nothing about it is pleasant. It's performance edge is fairly marginal at this point, it is riddled with security holes, it is a PITA to deal with, and its stability is matched by others. And all of its competitors have a better ecosphere to go along with it.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247976]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:03:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yes, very comprhensive!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247975]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Good work on that! I agree with Tony, there should be an easy way (opt in needed, of course!) to collect system info for both failed *and* successful deployments, to help the developers out.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247975]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:58:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You seem to have covered the bases there]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247876]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[probably the only jib would be two systems, to test deployment on especially in windows world.A good thing to do with the customers consent of course is to collect set up info, windows version (db, web as possibly) service packs, memory size .... Possibly as part of the install it self. Build up a picture of your deployment targets.Even not going mad We test deployment on many combinations (server, client and  network), subtly different each one.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247876]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Hopkinson]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:08:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[My &quot;Favorite&quot; Oracle Upgrade]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247563]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My favorite Oracle upgrade story was, I believe the Oracle 6 client upgrade.  The installer for Oracle 8i didn't support an upgrade and said to uninstall the old version.  Well, the uninstaller left Windows NT in an unbootable state; it removed one of the critical operating system files!Luckily, we had tested on a lab server and could rebuild it.  Unfortunately, during the remote upgrade of 1 of 12 servers, the engineer messed up and I had to get a new server shipped out via next day express.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247563]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Wayne M.]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:54:57 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not a bad standard...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247195]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... the DMV folks. I like to test software on my mother. She's a pretty smart lady who has been around PCs for a while, but definitely not an expert, and represents the average office worker fairly well in that regard. If she can't use it from CD unwrapping to day-to-day usage to uninstall, time to go back to the drawing board.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247195]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 23:48:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[My take on the matter:]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247084]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Between you talking about the importance of deployment as a development concern, and Wayne M.'s &quot;Deployment Philosophy&quot; post, I was inspired to write up my own set of guidelines for developing deployment procedures.  I composed it mainly as a means of reminding myself of the important factors involved in deployment planning for developers, but sometimes find that the best way to make it stick is to share it with others.That also makes it more difficult to justify doing a half-assed job of specifying a set of guidelines -- it has to stand up to public scrutiny:10 tips for developing deployment procedures (or: Deployment Is Development)If you have (or if anyone else, for that matter, has) any suggestions for how I might improve the guideline list, please let me know.  I'm all about making things better.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247084]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 20:03:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Oracle installs]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247105]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[How could I forget Oracle installs, not just the client, with their insane Java GUI thingy? My favorite is when it incorrectly sets the file permissions wrong, which you do not find out until you try running it, and do to some bizarre behavior, you need to correct the permissions and reboot the server to get it to work... just what you need on a Production server.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2247105]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 20:02:01 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Short sighted and self centered?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2246862]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Not really, they are very different jobs, I've done both, at the same time when I was a one man shop, in a 24/7 environment as well.Developers tend to weigh more heavily to the creative, ie they learn by making mistakes, sometimes very profitably.In operations 'we' concentrate on cutting down on the risk of making a mistake.It's a good idea to rotate your developers through the deployment team, they are never going to appreciate the issues, particularly how they can ease deployment, without getting some first hand experience.Out biggest **** up came from deploying MSDE along with our applications. Just rolls back if File and Printer sharing isn't enabled. Oh and it's for the agent service, which we didn't want anyway.Never got an explanation as to the why of this ******* dependency either.Of course every machine we tested it on had it enabled.Error message in install log, once you find the damn thing, completely uninformative, requiring trawling all over the WWW to find the damn thing.Another task for the installation checker.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2246862]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Hopkinson]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 14:58:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Developers as Admins....]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2246653]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I do packaging and deployment for a living.  There are two, really indispensible items I believe orgs should have that deploy software:1.) A rock solid, agreed-upon process on how software gets pushed through the deployment cycle replete with test environments.2.) A web-based change management portal to track it all.  My biggest headaches?  They are the following:1.) Weak installation packages written by vendors (actually, Microsoft does a pretty good job here...you can pretty much automate their stuff rather easily).  Siebel is EASILY the worst I have ever dealt with. And I still don't understand why Oracle felt the need to write their own installation system.  There are many good commercial ones available.2.) Short-sighted, self-centered developers, who believe their stuff should take precedence over everyone else's.  In my experience, most developers are laughably bad admins.3.) Unreasonable schedules.  I understand time to market is important, but you shouldn't sacrifice quality, consistency, etc. and too often I have seen quality and consistency traded off in a negative way.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2246653]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Flyers70]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 11:35:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Sad, Sad, Sad, but True True True]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2246383]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Been installing software for 30+ years. Have seen most all of it, The Good, the Bad, and the UGLY. I could say that painful installs DO provide job security; but I would really rather do more good installs, and have some time to pretty things up, make sure it all works, and make nice to those who pay me. In the construction business they refer to &quot;Call Backs&quot;. Hate them, they cost, not pay; and the users do not forget. Creating good install packages should be a highly paid specialty. Their final test should be to give it to a DMV employee and have them successfully install without help.  (Appologize to good DMV folks, recent bad experience).]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2246383]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[john_mattson@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 07:24:25 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Take the &quot;Jiffy Lube&quot; Approach]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2246209]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I always try to treat my client as a customer, regardless if they are internal, external, or whatever.  The deployment dept should be treated with as much consideration as the guy who signs your check.I think a deployment should be like the treatment you get at a Jiffy Lube.  As opposed to other shops were they just slam down the hood and say &quot;you're all set&quot;, Jiffy Lube has a person come by and say &quot;Here is the service we performed for you today, sir.&quot;Even if it's a checklist produced on a spreadsheet that gets emailed to all parties, there should be a reporting to stakeholders of what you did during the deployment process.You would be surprised how many times people will come back to you and say &quot;Whoa, we did what to the production box?&quot;. (No matter how many times you tell them beforehand, they never seem to read the email until after you deploy.) Lots of proactive steps during the staging process will come up when you take this approach.  That way, the real end user doesn't have to deal with as many hiccups.&quot;So, today sir, we suggest you upgrade to the new Vista air filter ...&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2246209]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[monte_bertrand@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 05:08:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The first few customers...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245974]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... are always the ones who get hurt the worst by this attitude that you describe, and of course, they are supposed to be the reference accounts. That is one thing to be said for hosted applications, you let someone else worry about the deployment...J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245974]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 19:58:51 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yup!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245973]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;Put some resource into this otherwise your carefully crafted genius level code  will go straight into the bin.&quot;I know exactly what you mean. I've seen it happen too many times! Especially when the customer has a 90 day period with minimal financial commitment. Or worse, when you've dropped big bucks on software, and never got it past the test server because it was such a mess. That kills careers.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245973]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 19:57:45 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Sadly true!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245972]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;I am always surprised that we will spend months developing an application and then try to define the deployment approach the day before release. Develop the deployment infrastructure first and avoid the &quot;But it works on my machine&quot; syndrome.&quot;Too many times I've seen great software get a bad rep or worse, never get past the customer's 90 day pilot program because of this attitude!J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245972]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 19:56:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Work real hard, pull out a lot of hair and cry]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245817]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Deploying to your own machines, is something that there is no excuse for failing at.Back out's, good procedures, tested ones !Stick production in a VM and deploy to it.Best tip I can give.If the update script, exe, procedure whatever goes off track.Stop find out why, roll all the way back and start with version + 1.Do not fix one in mid stride, and assume you know exactly what went wrong.Installs on development machines do not count, that's for fixing spelling mistakes and such.Deploying to clients machines, as well as the above is fraught with difficulty. That's when you find out you can't put MSDE on because file and printer sharing is disabled.That you need to elevate under Vista to map a drive.That even though you never tried it some twit is trying to put it on XP Home or worse still Media centre, or they aren't patched or service packed up to date. That the firewall is blocking something, a false positive from an anti-virus, (worse still a true positive  ), that the user installing doesn't have the necessary rights....Installation checker is a must in my opinion.There will always be systems where installation will fail, concentrate on the majority.Have some machines to test deployment on , various flavours of windows, with possibly different combinations of web and a database servers, network topologies. Don't forget Citrix type set ups as well, workgroup vs domain can have a massive impact.It's a damn nightmare, and the chances of waking up from it are minimal.Put some resource into this otherwise your carefully crafted genius level code  will go straight into the bin.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245817]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Hopkinson]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 14:52:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Deployment planning should begin during requirements gathering]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245763]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Planning of the deployment is usually not a design consideration for large system programming projects.  Instead, a few hardy fools are allocated to figure out the 'conversion', which is expected to be a simple reformat of existing data files or database tables.  The rest is assumed to be simple.  Try to bring up deployment as a necessary requirement during design and people will assume you have a VCR at home blinking 12:00, and shouldn't be in the room at all.  It isn't until someone discovers at a client site that some critical elements are missing at a critical time, or some critical product is missing on users' machines, or worse yet that some critical product already on the remote users' machines is incompatible with the new application (and wasn't present on the test machines).]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245763]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gardoglee]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 14:29:57 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Deployment Philosophy]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245466]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I like to treat deployment as the most critical feature in a development effort.  If the software can't be deployed, the rest of the features are immaterial.1) Make installation the first iteration deliverable.  As soon as there is an executable, web page, or what ever with a version number or even  just &quot;Hello, World&quot;, install it on a near production (or perhaps even a full production) system.2) Automate the installation.  Take the time to write an installer, scripts, custom executables, etc. in whatever combination needed.  Even though the deployment may be a one time event, it needs to be tested multiple times.  Do not accept any results saying, &quot;Gee, I guess I forgot a step this time.&quot;3) Have an installation validation, preferably automated.  Verify all files are put in the expected directories.  Verify the version numbers or dates of installed files (hint, set the file date to its create date in the install routine).  Verify basic operation.  Don't just read over the install program, verify it actually does what you think it does.3) Always have a rollback plan and test it.  Know exactly what you plan to do if an error crops up.  Plan for both immediate detection and detecting the error after about a week of operation.  You may have to have both a partial and full rollback plan.  Some items, such as DLL upgrades or Oracle Client upgrades, may be riskier to rollback than to just leave in place.4) Avoid configuration options in developed software.  Lock it down!  Why test the software and then leave the door open to someone to misconfigure it.5) Always use the install utility internally to set up new machines.  Do not use any short cuts or simply copy files to save time.  If the install fails, drop everything else, debug and fix the installer.  Remember, the installer is your highest priority deliverable.6) Always have at least one test machine.  Developer machines are never configured the same as user machines; try to keep them close, but recognize they will differ.  It is often useful to have some baseline user configurations ghosted for test.I am always surprised that we will spend months developing an application and then try to define the deployment approach the day before release.  Develop the deployment infrastructure first and avoid the &quot;But it works on my machine&quot; syndrome.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245466]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Wayne M.]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 08:18:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Some people never learn, that's why I timed my leave]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245378]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[so well. This same boss thought we could buy a single appliance that did anti-virus and web proxy in one and use it to replace a whole secure gateway with built in redundancy. We tried to tell him the mail server wouldn't work through it as the system came totally default setting for security reasons that blocked all but the few ports needed for the AV and the web proxy.Hate to think how much it cost to fix the damage at several client sites he had it installed. I made a point of including in the branch meeting minutes with the big boss that the device would NOT work as advertised and I'd proven that. For that I GOT FIRED, well contract not renewed is the legal term.I heard later several big bosses failed to make bonuses the next year due to the costs of fixing up that little faux pas.edited to add the default settings could NOT be user changed.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-224315-2245378]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 06:44:24 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

