241–250 of 697 posts
I just do not understand how Azure has the scale it does. You only need to login and click around for a bit to see this is not a coherent system designed by competent people. Let alone try and actually build something on it. Who are the customers? Who is buying this shit?
I think this is especially problematic (from Part 4 at https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize... ): "The team had reached a point where it was too risky to make any code refactoring or engineering improvements. I submitted several bug fixes and refactoring, notably using smart pointers, but they were rejected for fear of breaking something." Once you reach this stage, the only escape is to first…
And that, my friends, is why you want a memory safe language with as many static guarantees as possible checked automatically by the compiler.
A business man at a prior employer sympathetic with my younger, naive "Microsoft sucks" attitude told me something I remember to this day: Microsoft is not a software company, they have never been experts at software. They are experts at contracts. They lead because their business machine exceeds at understanding how to tick the boxes necessary to win contract bids. The people who make purchasing decisions at compani…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What are we reading here? These are extraordinary statements. Also with apparent credibility. I left Microsoft in 2014. Already back then I could see this sort of stuff starting to happen. The Office Org was mostly immune from it because they had a lot of lifers, people who had been working on the same code for decades and who thought through changes slowly. But even by 2014 there were problems hiring developers wh…
Antivirus wasn’t mandatory in 2007 after the 2003 Blaster Worm, that required no user action to compromise the PC? Wild
Power Platform is of the same quality, I’d avoid it if possible. I was a principal engineer in the Power Platform org and it always felt like a disorganized mess. Multiple reorganizations per year, changing priorities and service ownership.
These days, at work, I need to support applications build on Azure and Power Platform. Both are a hot mess. We get notifications that our APIM is down for at least 15min every weeks at random times. Power Platform is just a "preview" mess, things break and are not functional. I complained about it and basically was told to shut up, the industry is using them, so they must be right. No one is testing anything anymore.
I think this is especially problematic (from Part 4 at https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize... ): "The team had reached a point where it was too risky to make any code refactoring or engineering improvements. I submitted several bug fixes and refactoring, notably using smart pointers, but they were rejected for fear of breaking something." Once you reach this stage, the only escape is to first…
is microsoft committing an accounting fraud?
A business man at a prior employer sympathetic with my younger, naive "Microsoft sucks" attitude told me something I remember to this day: Microsoft is not a software company, they have never been experts at software. They are experts at contracts. They lead because their business machine exceeds at understanding how to tick the boxes necessary to win contract bids. The people who make purchasing decisions at compani…
I think this is especially problematic (from Part 4 at https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize... ): "The team had reached a point where it was too risky to make any code refactoring or engineering improvements. I submitted several bug fixes and refactoring, notably using smart pointers, but they were rejected for fear of breaking something." Once you reach this stage, the only escape is to first…
Once you reach this stage, the only escape is to jump ship. Either mentally or, ideally, truly. You're in an unwinnable position. Don't take the brunt for management's mistakes. Don't try to fix what you have no agency over.
The system/management style is ingrained in corporate culture of large-ish companies (i would say if it has more than 2 layers of management from you to someone owning the equity of the business and calling the shots, it's "large").
It stems from the fact that when an executive is bestowed the responsibility of managing a company from the shareholders, the responsibility is diluted, and the agent-principle problem rears their ugly head. When several more layers of this starts growing in a large company, the divergence and the path of least resistance is to have zero trust in the "subordinates", lest they make a choice that is contrary to what their managers want.
The only way to make good software is to have a small, nimble organization, where the craftsman (doing the work) makes the call, gets the rewards, and suffers the consequences (if any). That aligns the agent-principle together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fairness the SECWAR is hardly a computing expert. But in this case the SECWAR has been properly advised. If anything it's astonishing that a program whereby China-based Microsoft engineers telling U.S.-based Microsoft engineers specific commands to type in ever made it off the proposal page inside Microsoft, accelerated time-to-market or not. It defeats the entire purpose of many of the NIST security controls that…
I'd like to suggest calling him SECDEF, not SECWAR. IMHO the country should not capitulate to Trump's power grabs, even if Congress refuses to perform their oversight duties.