Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DownSouth who wrote (27700)	8/17/1999 7:20:00 PM
From: Techplayer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

downsouth, These are the same engineers that are doing this all over the world (from the old Cascade communication). If the wcom people do not follow the directions on the upgrade, how is this LU's fault? LU is with the program. It is WCOM that seems to be having the trouble, from integration to support to PR to admitting fault. Brian

To: DownSouth who wrote (27700)	8/18/1999 12:14:00 AM
From: Techplayer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Downsouth, interesting insight from another board...This sounds very accurate, but I did not write it.. "My sources tell me that LU (Cascade) engineers are convinced that the central problem which led to the Wcom network outage was the fact that Wcom messed up their database prior to the upgrade. Furthermore, Wcom then chose to ignore Lucent's strong and repeated warnings to sync up their database. Apparently, the high CPU utilization was reproduced at Lucent by introducing the identical database problems that Wcom had introduced into their network prior to their upgrade. No wonder Lucent has not accepted blame for this. Assuming that this is in fact how Lucent feels (that it was actually Wcom's fault), how should they respond in the press?"