[mdlug] Healthcare.gov development problem

[David Lane]

One main point I want to make is that, with the right people and the right resources the roll out would have been smoother. 

I'm waiting to know if the it was a ".net" or  something else. 


and in a scalable case If I were spending my own money I would select Linux. I would much rather Pay my staff more then pay more for licensing,

And the choir said "AMAN"

David 





On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 12:22 PM, Jeff Hanson <jhansonxi at gmail.com> wrote:
 
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=healthcare.gov
http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=healthcare.gov

More likely just another example of bad government procurement rules.  The fact that the site worked at all is an improvement over some of their other major IT projects.

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/governance-and-risk/lessons-from-a-billion-dollar-project-failure.html





On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM, David Lane <dcl400m at yahoo.com> wrote:

Before I start:
>
>I am only interested in the technical aspects of the Web solution NOT anybodies political views.
>
>
>I was signing up for insurance and the site felt like a ".NET" resource site. Then I did not work.  Now it is working much better.
>
>I would love to know what MISSED steps the project incurred to produce such a result.
>
>
>My thought is that;
>
>1. The project was not managed in that there was no Alfa Testing or Beta testing.
>2. The development hierarchy needed a Software/Solution Architect 
>3. The Back end resources were not implemented correctly
>4. They used inexperienced developers/programmers
>5. Gurus were not used
>6. No Quality Assurence
>7. THEY USED MICROSOFT (LOL)
>
>
>I could go on, but engineering solutions have glitches that is to be expected but I'm thinking that I'm a programmer that strives to do my best to deliver solutions that perform well. I even get in trouble fighting to do my best.
>
>
>I guess my point is that skilled IT Professionals sometimes are short changed in that an Executive look at what they are paying and say can i get it for cheaper, and make more money? When the solution does not work right or has more glitches than normal the project ends up costing more than having a seasoned professional develop the project.
>
>I have to say I don't like Microsoft sponsoring Visa's so that they can pay their staff less money.
>
>As I said this is NOT about politics, it is about IT Culture and the string of bad choices that were made to produce a flawed solution. And I believe that If they chose the right people and the right resources there would not be an issue.
>
>But My Bias is that Linux is so much more scalable than Microsoft, fact check me look at www.top500.org. And employing AND paying IT Gurus would have helped.
>
>
>David C. Lane
>Programmer
>"Linux Leaning"
>_______________________________________________
>mdlug mailing list
>mdlug at mdlug.org
>http://mdlug.org/mailman/listinfo/mdlug
>