A UX designer might have told them it was a bad idea to deploy the patch widely without testing a smaller cohort, for instance. That’s an obvious measure that they skipped this time.
I can't believe people on HN are posting this stuff over and over again. Either you are holistically disconnected from what proper software development should look like or outright creating the same environments that resulted in the crowdstrike issue.
Software security and quality is the responsibility of everyone on the team. A good UX designer should be thinking of ways a user can escape the typical flow or operate in unintended ways and express that to testers. And in decisions where management is forcing untested patches everyone should chime in.
Not true; UX designers typically are responsible for advocating for a robust, intuitive experience for users. The fact that kernel updates don’t have a user interface doesn’t make them exempt from asking the simple question: how will this affect users? And the subsequent question: is there a chance that deploying this eviscerates the user experience?
Granted, a company that isn’t focused on the user experience as much as it is on other things might not prioritise this as much in the first place.
How would it not be related? Jamming untested code down the pipe with no way for users to configure when it's deployed and then rendering their machines inoperable is an extremely bad user experience and I would absolutely expect a UX expert to step in to try to avoid that.
Pfft, I never said that at all. I’m not talking about technical decisions. OP was talking about QC, which is verifying software for human use. If you don’t have user-centered people involved (UX or product or proserve) then you end up with user-hostile decisions like these people made.
