Hallvord R. M. Steen

Most expensive javascript ever?

Monday, 20. July 2009, 12:15:51

I've wanted to tell this story for a while, and I don't think I'm spilling any beans or disclosing any sensitive information at this point.

So, a while ago Opera Software needed more servers. Not just a few servers either - we were planning Opera Mini's growth, implementing Opera Link, and My Opera was also growing quickly. We predicted crazy server load increases for the foreseeable future (and man, were we right!)

Clearly we needed to make a massive investment on the server capacity front (basically buying these shiny things and then some.)

Management put a hefty check on the table - I'm sure our beloved sysadmins felt like kids before Christmas - and salivating sales people from major hardware vendors grabbed our requirements spec, dived into their CRMs and crunched their spreadsheets. They emerged with offers and sample servers shipped all the way to Oslo for our testing pleasure.

However, one of the world's biggest hardware vendors - whose name every single reader will be familiar with, and whose hardware a good share of you will be using right now - apparently didn't do their homework. When Opera's sysadmin booted up the server to test its web-based administration interface, they came across a single JavaScript statement that managed to piss off everyone up to and including the CTO.

This single statement, apparently written by some sub-contractor they had outsourced admin interface programming to, cost them millions of NOK in lost sales.

And the code they sent all the way to Oslo for testing? Here's an extract:

if (is.opera)
{
window.location.href="config/error.htm";
}

Facebook monitors your alert() usagebrowser.js updates: Hotmail, Tuenti, AOL Webmail

Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

tomassplatch # 20. July 2009, 12:38

Hilarious! Thank's for sharing!

Zotlan # 20. July 2009, 12:49

So which was the lucky company that got the order?

navarr # 20. July 2009, 12:52

I read that and was just like "oh my god."

Sucks for them =\

Andrew Gregory # 20. July 2009, 13:13

Serves them right!

theoddbod # 20. July 2009, 13:40

What i want to know is, did you tell them this, and how rude were you?

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 14:10

Anonymous writes:

And thats why you dont use opera Opera
bceause everone knows that all webminds use firefox

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 14:15

Anonymous writes:

So, was the guy who was responsible for the idea of outsourcing fired? Was it the CTO? :)

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 14:24

Anonymous writes:

^--I don't think you get it.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 14:45

Anonymous writes:

I dont get it

ColKilkenny # 20. July 2009, 14:46

That is kind of funny, or not.

Tamil # 20. July 2009, 14:48

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 14:48

Anonymous writes:

hahaha

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 14:53

Anonymous writes:

Who's fault? This is unlucky for that company, but I would also blame the lack of compatibility between browsers for this.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 14:53

Anonymous writes:

Was it someone on this page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_Norway

melnichuck # 20. July 2009, 14:57

Brilliant! They should be on top of the Fail blog

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 14:59

Anonymous writes:

A sysadmin using a browser? Real sysadmins use elvis :-)

blu3c4t # 20. July 2009, 14:59

hahaha...

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:01

Anonymous writes:

I hope the sub-contractor got a good thrashing, promptly fired and banned from doing on web development for all eternity. It's one thing to not officially support something (even though, it's pretty lame to not support all of the main browsers), but it's an offense to all things holy when you redirect someone to an error page if they aren't using a browser you intend to support.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:03

Anonymous writes:

> ...it's an offense to all things holy when you redirect someone to an error page if they aren't using a browser you intend to support.

And, more importantly, it's an offense to your employer to redirect someone to an error page if they're using their own browser!

(I mean, seriously, how dumb can you be?)

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:04

Anonymous writes:

Uh, no, it is a hardware (server) company who also sells consumer machines, and is worldwide, so my guess is the almighty Dell(?).

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:05

Anonymous writes:

Can you at least tell us which company won the contract?

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:06

Anonymous writes:

Dell right?

I use 5 browsers on a regular basis at work. The Dell remote access cards (DRACs) redirect to an error page for every single one of these browsers saying they're ALL incompatible.

If I change the user agent through an HTTP proxy, ALL of the same browsers DO works with the DRACs, (if you discount them requiring administrative permissions to access the server console plugin). :-)

FAIL

Chas4 # 20. July 2009, 15:10

Originally posted by Andrew Gregory:

Serves them right!

Servers them right

Any idea for Solar Panels on the roof?

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:12

Anonymous writes:

Great story. If it is Dell, it is even funnier. I user to work as a sub for Dell. If you walked into a meeting with a non-Dell laptop, they would tell you leave.

However, to be fair, it does seem like an easy mistake to make on Dell's part. The vendor who did the admin pages may have used ActiveX or something, making it incompatible with Opera. The sales rep who shipped over the demo system probably didn't even know what Opera was.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:22

Anonymous writes:

My take is HP.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:32

amyt writes:

A snippet from HP's ILO 2(Integrated Lights-Out 2) login:

var fire = detect.match(/firefox\/([\d\.]+)/);
if(
( ie!=null && ie[1] >= "6.0" ) ||
( fire!=null && fire[1] >= "1.0.2" ) ||
( moz!=null && moz[1] >= "1.6" )
) {
// supported browser; do nothing
} else {
alert( "Integrated Lights-Out 2 supports Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0 or greater, Firefox version 1.0.2 or greater, and Mozilla version 1.6 or greater. Some functionality may not work and pages may not format correctly on other browser platforms. This browser platform reports it is \""+navigator.userAgent+"\"");

So it doesn't explicitly support Opera but it doesn't just dump you to an error page either.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:33

Anonymous writes:

lol...oh ya some "outside subcontractor", sure. Even if he this was subcontracted, that person received browser specs/requirements and obviously the vendor did not include Opera--or should i say, the costs associated with supporting Opera. So don't blame the subcontractor, how come no one at the company "tested" in their QA Lab with all the supported OS/browser requirements? Right, some "subcontractor" i'm sure.

citoyen # 20. July 2009, 15:38

Priceless

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:41

Delliteful writes:

Five browsers?

My guesses are...
-IE
-Firefox
-Chrome
-Opera
-Safari.

Do I win anything?

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:43

Anonymous writes:

Maybe error.htm is some abbreviation for a custom Opera look-and-feel?

E nhanced
R eally
R ich
O pera
R endering?

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:50

U-R-Blogspammer writes:

No plans on actually telling us who it was?

Yeah, of course not. You just want the hits...

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 15:57

Anonymous writes:

I had a router once that had admin screens that didn't support Firefox. No error message, but every form submit was just ignored.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 16:01

Anonymous writes:

Bell Canada's Internet services has a similarly stupid issue, it deliberately screws up the rendering of it's routers' web-interface, but I change the ID, and it works fine.

FataL # 20. July 2009, 16:16

Priceless!

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 16:28

Anonymous writes:

It was probably just put in for last minute debugging purposes and someone forgot to take it out. small blunder, although it caused a HUGE loss.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 16:31

Anonymous writes:

Why wouldn't he indent his code properly? And why would he create an object called "is" ? That is greater mysteries to me, than why someone chooses not to support Opera (hey, they used to be ad based!).

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 16:34

JoaCHIP writes:

Oh wow. I've always advocated against browser checks, but this one just might go into geek history! :D

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 16:44

Anonymous writes:

this is a no brainer, you do NOT want to drive an administrative page with a suboptimal browser like opera.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 16:45

Anonymous writes:

this is a nobrainer, you really need to use a major market browser to drive administrative pages. Opera hasn't been maintained since the early 90s.

Chas4 # 20. July 2009, 16:48

Anonymous suboptimal does not describe Opera at all, this might tho:

"I've seen people ask why Opera even exists. Well, if it didn't the other browsers wouldn't have new features to copy."

dustinwilson

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 16:55

Anonymous writes:

You guys have a crap recruitment process and the new info is you have a crap outsourcing process as well. My point is from the top management to the lower level you guys never know how to make any decision or choose any god damn thing. Probably you outsource to those guys because their hair looks white.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 16:56

Anonymous writes:

The photo in the news article linked shows the servers they bought. I think I see the HP logo, so I guess that rules out HP as the culprit.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 17:05

Anonymous writes:

What is opera?

Chas4 # 20. July 2009, 17:11

Opera is a web browser
http://www.opera.com/

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 17:16

Anonymous writes:

Why should I even use a proprietary closed-source browser which costs money?

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 17:18

Anonymous writes:

Testing IBM.com on Opera 9.64. All I get is a blank page.

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 17:19

Anonymous writes:

can't wait to add that code everywhere!

Anonymous # 20. July 2009, 17:23

Anonymous writes:

Wait... IBM did load. It just took a very long time.