201–210 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard disagree. This is professional negligence. How would you feel if your doctor only prescribed medicine from one single supplier?
If the single supplier supplied the correct medicine, and it works, why worry?
He's absolutely right, you really can't trust anything they sign anymore. This is why Microsoft has been so defensive about their stance since it occurred. I've said the same since the news got out, but all my Microsoft-y friends I told didn't care. In fact, they all shrugged it off like "what are ya gonna do?" That's exactly the problem - what ARE companies going to do? Migrate OFF windoze? Migrate out of Azure? To…
> be a slave to Microsoft Ok. So are you suggesting that the most practicable alternative is to be a slave to [list of 100+ other vendors]? Going out of your way to defenestrate a trillion dollar technology vendor is a bit bananas to me. If you are trying to run a business , I think you are completely fucking yourself over with this sort of attitude. How much business convenience are you willing to squander over thes…
All of your arguments are "made up" arguments, they contradict themselves or each other or assume some very unlikely situations, especially on behalf of what the post you replied to wanted to say, where it's clear it's not what it wanted to say.
Let's dive in!
> So are you suggesting that the most practicable alternative is to be a slave
Clearly, the post you replied to doesn't suggest that. (But you went on arguing as if it did).
> a trillion dollar technology vendor is a bit bananas to me.
Nobody's killing Microsoft. But even if they were, maybe that's the right thing? You make no arguments not to.
> If you are trying to run a business, I think you are completely fucking yourself over with this sort of attitude.
The company I work for runs on Linux. The company I worked for before this runs on Linux. The company I worked for before the last one also runs on Linux. And the one before those two -- yes, you guessed it, also runs on Linux. The operating system chosen to run a business was never a serious factor in terms of whether the company succeeded or failed. By and large, it's not important.
Are there specific technologies / products only available on Windows? -- You bet! What should be done about those? -- find a way asap to not make them exclusive to that platform. One of the most tragic situations in this respect is in medicine. Windows is ubiquitous in this field. To the point that I'd say that governments should step in and invest into the healthcare they control to change the situation. I.e. to do the complete opposite of what you are suggesting.
> Microsoft is a big place.
All under the same roof, with the same objectives and strategy, which are to screw you (the "Microsoft shop") in particular, but also, if possible even those who managed to stay away from them. The problems Microsoft creates for the world aren't somehow local to one or two departments of the company. The company, no matter how big is responsible for its policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to work as a federal contractor for the US Military in 1996-1997 and they replaced their Windows Web Servers with Macintosh ones because the Mac had better security. I used to run a Windows 2000 Pro web server, after lack of security I switched to Linux. Microsoft may be popular, but they have big holes in their security. Always has been.
They replaced Windows NT with Classic Mac OS?
As long as the underlying OS is secure enough that attackers can't get in via something like a buffer overflow in the TCP code, website security is almost entirely a matter of web server application security.
A well written web server application on Classic Mac OS then could be more secure than a less well written web server application on a more secure operating system such as NT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> own ways to do anything but be a slave to Microsoft I guarantee 99/100 humans on this forum either currently host with AWS/GCP/Azure or have worked at a shop that does. And I bet an outsized portion of those AWS/GCP shops also host on Azure for Azure AD. There is no one that is ready for a de-Microsofted world. Even Linux distros have been increasing their support for integrating into the MS ecosystem and forsaking…
What's wrong with openldap? I mean, apart from being a pita, i thought it was the widely used central auth directory (behind all sorts of sso frontends).
This issue is specific to Azure and Microsoft. I find AWS and GCP to be fine. Microsoft has some of the worst security vulnerabilities and practices I have ever seen. I can’t for the life of me figure out how executives at big Fortune 500 move their workloads to Azure. The only selling point Microsoft has for Azure in some domains is that Amazon is their competitor. I wish Amazon just let AWS be it’s own thing. I als…
> This issue is specific to Azure and Microsoft. I find AWS and GCP to be fine. This issue. Services get compromised often, cloud or customer managed. Microsoft has a mature, professional and effective security team. They got compromised, due to implementation flaws and one or more (my conjecture) corrupted insiders. Most organizations would have no idea wtf happened and would not be able to identify what has been re…
I'm not surprised, it's Microsoft after all. They lied about their data security to win bids in health market, only to let everybody down after a year when they finally understood the cost to secure that particular data were too high for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn’t SolarWinds Microsoft software being compromised too? When the US govt got hacked they actually did something about it government-wide. Started new security standards. For themselves and their vendors like M$
SolarWinds is the name of company that was compromised, and as far as I can tell was never owned by MS.
A quick scan of a summary of the SolarWinds story suggests that's not the case, but it's possible that the article I read glossed over too much.
He's absolutely right, you really can't trust anything they sign anymore. This is why Microsoft has been so defensive about their stance since it occurred. I've said the same since the news got out, but all my Microsoft-y friends I told didn't care. In fact, they all shrugged it off like "what are ya gonna do?" That's exactly the problem - what ARE companies going to do? Migrate OFF windoze? Migrate out of Azure? To…
And just recently Sharepoint was found to accept alg: null JWT tokens (ie. complete authentication bypass)
Catastrophically-bad-by-design authentication is a Microsoft staple.
This issue is specific to Azure and Microsoft. I find AWS and GCP to be fine. Microsoft has some of the worst security vulnerabilities and practices I have ever seen. I can’t for the life of me figure out how executives at big Fortune 500 move their workloads to Azure. The only selling point Microsoft has for Azure in some domains is that Amazon is their competitor. I wish Amazon just let AWS be it’s own thing. I als…
He's absolutely right, you really can't trust anything they sign anymore. This is why Microsoft has been so defensive about their stance since it occurred. I've said the same since the news got out, but all my Microsoft-y friends I told didn't care. In fact, they all shrugged it off like "what are ya gonna do?" That's exactly the problem - what ARE companies going to do? Migrate OFF windoze? Migrate out of Azure? To…
> be a slave to Microsoft Ok. So are you suggesting that the most practicable alternative is to be a slave to [list of 100+ other vendors]? Going out of your way to defenestrate a trillion dollar technology vendor is a bit bananas to me. If you are trying to run a business , I think you are completely fucking yourself over with this sort of attitude. How much business convenience are you willing to squander over thes…
Edit:
Adding a quote from the OP’s linked blog on the subject:
> There is this well cited argument that cloud companies like Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and you-name-it are able to protect your personal data much better than you are able to. They have military grade security restrictions, better backup methods, and are able to do this much cheaper.
> While this argument being absolutely true, people seem to forget that giving away your data to any third party is the root of many problems in the first place. It is not relevant to whom you are giving your data to.
>Let me explain…
So OP is arguing that this is why you can’t trust anybody not just MS. That’s a stance too, and perhaps for an incredibly security sensitive product the correct one, but definitely an impractical one for probably 98% of software products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the cloud is much safer. It's not like someone is going to hack the whole Microsoft cloud. Oh, hang on ...
Funny as this was one of the winning arguments when we went to the cloud, couldn’t possible be safer to host your own, right ? RiGhT?
What we see, instead, is what happens to poorly democratized and incentivized systems.