331–340 of 697 posts
I don't know if any of this is true, but as a user of Azure every day this would explain so much. The Azure UI feels like a janky mess, barely being held together. The documentation is obviously entirely written by AI and is constantly out of date or wrong. They offer such a huge volume of services it's nearly impossible to figure out what service you actually want/need without consultants, and when you finally get t…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> risks to national security Microsoft is the go to solution for every government agency, FEDRAMP / CMMC environments, etc. > People come in all the time crying that everything is broken and needs to be scrapped and rewritten but it's hardly ever true. This I'm more sympathetic to. I really don't think his approach of "here's what a rewrite would look like" was ever going to work and it makes me think that there's an…
> Microsoft is the go to solution for every government agency, FEDRAMP / CMMC environments, etc. I've been involved with FEDRAMP initiatives in the past. That doesn't mean as much as you'd think. Some really atrocious systems have been FEDRAMP certified. Maybe when you go all the way to FEDRAMP High there could be some better guardrails; I doubt it. Microsoft has just been entrenched in the government, that's all. Th…
I never said otherwise. I said that Microsoft services are the defacto tools for FEDRAMP. I never implied that those environments are some super high standard of safety. But obviously if the tools used for every government environment are fundamentally unsafe, that's a massive national security problem.
> Microsoft has just been entrenched in the government, that's all.
Yes, this is what I was saying.
> The author does mention rewriting subsystem by subsystem while keeping the functionality intact, adding a proper messaging layer, until the remaining systems are just a shell of what they once were. That sounds reasonable.
It sounds reasonable, it's just hard to say without more insight. We're getting one side of things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> risks to national security Microsoft is the go to solution for every government agency, FEDRAMP / CMMC environments, etc. > People come in all the time crying that everything is broken and needs to be scrapped and rewritten but it's hardly ever true. This I'm more sympathetic to. I really don't think his approach of "here's what a rewrite would look like" was ever going to work and it makes me think that there's an…
FedRAMP means nothing. It’s a checkbox. National security stuff has a different standard.
I've worked in Windows for many many years, no idea who this guy is. He is randomly name dropping. He wants attention.
What are we reading here? These are extraordinary statements. Also with apparent credibility. They sound reasonable. Is this a whistleblower or an ex employee with a grudge? The appearance is the first. Is it? They’ve put their name to some clear and worrying statements. > On January 7, 2025… I sent a more concise executive summary to the CEO. … When those communications produced no acknowledgment, I took the customa…
Large orgs make decisions that prioritize short-term metrics over long-term quality all the time and nobody tracks whether those tradeoffs actually paid off. The decision to ship fast and fix later sounds reasonable in a meeting setting until articles like this surface and the reality comes through clearly.
No. It sounds reasonable past that. Because shipping features will make shareholders happy while an article like this will change nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An advantage how? Maybe you'll have one or two more 9s of uptime than your competitors; does that actually move the needle on your business?
It will depend on each case and what makes the marketed solution inferior. If it's overly complex and you will save development time. If it's unstable you'll save debugging time. If it's bloated you will save on hardware costs. Etc...
after all startups/scaleups/bigtech companies that make a lot of money can run on Python for ages, or make infinite money with Perl scripts (coughaws)
and it matters even less in non-tech companies, because their competition is also 3 incompetent idiots on top of each other in a business suite!
sure, if you are starting a new project fight for good technical fundamentals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, I hope you are doing good. From my personal experience, complaining about your manager to skip level manager is called Career Suicide. There is nothing good that can come out of it,, except getting fired.
It is, but “Microsoft runs on trust” they say. They also say the CEO’s inbox is always open, actually the CEO himself says it in the yearly mandatory training video on business conduct. So it should be safe, in theory, to openly speak out in the best interest of the customers, no? Rhetorical question :)
By the way, are you not worried about NDAs and such?