Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

blog.miloslavhomer.cz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 238 posts

Re: Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

#121

Post by ArcHound »

lmm wrote: post #118
ArcHound wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, at the end of the article I come to the conclusion that this method has flaws. But the general insurance can be modelled with ROSI. Say you have a 300k USD car. Say that a crash will cost you the full cost. You expect one crash in five years. You then have a yearly expected cost of 60k. If you get an insurance that pays for it all, for 10k USD a year, your ROSI is 500% which sounds like this insurance product is…

> Say you have a 300k USD car. Say that a crash will cost you the full cost. You expect one crash in five years. You then have a yearly expected cost of 60k. If you get an insurance that pays for it all, for 10k USD a year, your ROSI is 500% which sounds like this insurance product is great for you. But in the real world those numbers are backwards - otherwise insurance companies would go bankrupt! Your insurance for…

Of course it was an oversimplified example. All I wanted to show that ROSI can make a compelling argument for buying insurance. Now you're arguing that insurance is too cheap.

Re: Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

#122

Post by lmm »

ArcHound wrote: post #121
lmm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Say you have a 300k USD car. Say that a crash will cost you the full cost. You expect one crash in five years. You then have a yearly expected cost of 60k. If you get an insurance that pays for it all, for 10k USD a year, your ROSI is 500% which sounds like this insurance product is great for you. But in the real world those numbers are backwards - otherwise insurance companies would go bankrupt! Your insurance for…

Of course it was an oversimplified example. All I wanted to show that ROSI can make a compelling argument for buying insurance. Now you're arguing that insurance is too cheap.

> All I wanted to show that ROSI can make a compelling argument for buying insurance.

But it can't! In the real world, insurance will always be a bad idea in expected value terms (unless being sold by an insurance company with bad pricing that's about to go bankrupt). Your model doesn't work and the only way you can pretend it works is by making up unrealistic fake numbers.

Re: Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

#123

Post by jofzar »

kookamamie wrote: post #115
thefz wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game customers are on Windows because DirectX has been superior to OpenGL - development wise - for what, 30 years?

Yes, that's the essential reason. Even though that barrier has been lifted with Vulkan matching DX12 in many ways, the accumulated mass moves slowly.

Has there been a game where vulkan performance has been better then dx12? Whenever they are side by side vulkan always performs worse in my experience.

Re: Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

#124

Post by ArcHound »

lmm wrote: post #118
ArcHound wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, at the end of the article I come to the conclusion that this method has flaws. But the general insurance can be modelled with ROSI. Say you have a 300k USD car. Say that a crash will cost you the full cost. You expect one crash in five years. You then have a yearly expected cost of 60k. If you get an insurance that pays for it all, for 10k USD a year, your ROSI is 500% which sounds like this insurance product is…

> Say you have a 300k USD car. Say that a crash will cost you the full cost. You expect one crash in five years. You then have a yearly expected cost of 60k. If you get an insurance that pays for it all, for 10k USD a year, your ROSI is 500% which sounds like this insurance product is great for you. But in the real world those numbers are backwards - otherwise insurance companies would go bankrupt! Your insurance for…

Sorry, I don't follow then. Of course insurance companies will try to make a profit. The core of the method can be used to compare insurances and technically anything above zero is a good investment. I will reply no further here.

Re: Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

#125

Post by msgodel »

bob1029 wrote: post #18

The trick with Microsoft is to very carefully separate the good parts from the bad ones. Labeling all of Microsoft as banned is really constraining your technology options. This is a gigantic organization with a very diverse set of people in it. There aren't many things like .NET, MSSQL and Visual Studio out there. The debugger experience in VS is the holy grail if you have super nasty real world technology situation…

If you're not doing C++ gdb is pretty good, most people just don't know how to use it.

Re: Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

#126

Post by esperent »

ArcHound wrote: post #85
hilbert42 wrote: post #41

I still find it hard to believe that so many people and companies are prepared to use Microsoft's online/cloud services. Not ony is this a single point of failure but it's one they've no control over whatsoever. Same goes for Google/Youtube etc. It's as risky as flying a passenger jet with only one engine. What are they thinking, why are they prepared to risk everything? It boggles my mind.

It's cheap and it works well. Also integrates into everything related you'd need.

Also, if you're a small business without a dedicated tech team, what are your options that don't involve relying on a single big company?

Speaking for myself, running a bakery, I chose MS 365/Teams with regret but accepting that there's nothing else out there with the same value proposition except maybe Google workspace.

They have regional pricing so we get everything for the equivalent of $3.50 per user. Basically no other apps offer regional price - Slack alone would cost about $8 a user.

This includes chat, calls, messaging, 1tb of onedrive space per user, calendar, planner, emails, office, plus loads more.

Sure, it's janky but it basically works. The only thing I've found with a close value proposition (still slightly more expensive even if I limit to just a few gb of space per user) is self-hosted Nextcloud, which is about the same level of janky and requires a tech person or team to set up.

Re: Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

#127

Post by guiriduro »

neepi wrote: post #112

The outlined risk is not solely a Microsoft risk. It’s a “contract out to another irreplaceable service” risk. Make your technology fungible and risks disappear.

We (the EU) should have a reasonable response for monopolistic or significant market share suppliers that may fall under the control of foreign governments that could mitigate this issue. Else I noted:

(the EU) doesn't need to throw out the baby with the (US-controlled) bathwater. The EU should present Microsoft with an ultimatum similar to what China might: setup a non-controlled european licensee to own and manage all MS & Azure infrastructure in the region, or have some legislators force a similar structure on them. Complete control, full sourcecode, EU-only support/access - as a condition for corp HQ being allowed to have a monopolistic market share. Either way, nothing the US might decide to do should have any effect in "EU Microsoft", short of severing US Microsoft off completely, in which case EU MS just becomes fully autonomous and bye-bye US. Clearly, a US-controlled Microsoft without this structure is a deep security risk to europe now.

Re: Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

#128

Post by kookamamie »

jofzar wrote: post #123
kookamamie wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's the essential reason. Even though that barrier has been lifted with Vulkan matching DX12 in many ways, the accumulated mass moves slowly.

Has there been a game where vulkan performance has been better then dx12? Whenever they are side by side vulkan always performs worse in my experience.

There have been cases like that, e.g., RDR2, but I think it mostly comes down to implementation quality.

Re: Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

#129

Post by AnonymousPlanet »

firesteelrain wrote: post #19
AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AD and Domain Servers are like a cancer that will grow metastases around your org, costing user and client cals all over the place, even for every desk phone if you're not careful. The only winning move is never to play their game in the first place.

I'm in a situation where due to staff skillsets and ease of management then GPOs are required. Local GPOs would be insane to manage across thousands of PCs

Yes and that is a very common case. Windows is designed so that you barely have a chance to deal with your case without Microsoft components all the way. You would need a company with enormous resources to play catch up with the highly integrated and proprietary connections between each component.

It's a rigged monopoly and has nothing to do with a market economy. Once you have been forced to use Windows, you are doomed.

Re: Microsoft Dependency Has Risks

#130

Post by windward »

bob1029 wrote: post #18

The trick with Microsoft is to very carefully separate the good parts from the bad ones. Labeling all of Microsoft as banned is really constraining your technology options. This is a gigantic organization with a very diverse set of people in it. There aren't many things like .NET, MSSQL and Visual Studio out there. The debugger experience in VS is the holy grail if you have super nasty real world technology situation…

This isn't a coincidence. Microsoft have spent a lot of money, including billions in acquisitions, to maintain some positive developer mindshare.
Post reply on HN