Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

Post by jonnycoder » Wed, Mar 18, 2026, 5:36 PM UTC

anonymsft318 wrote: post #87

everdrive wrote: post #51

The experts were correct. Azure is the biggest pile of shit I've ever had to work with. Everything feels evolutionary. In other words, a new product in azure is barely a product at all, but a small appendage which totally inherits a bunch of preexisting Azure "stuff." And all this preexisting stuff may not really make sense for the product, and it might inherit stuff that makes the product much worse. But, it doesn't…

As a Microsoftie of more than a decade... Yeah, I see this. We have an internal system called Cosmos[0] that does a great job of processing huge quantities of data very fast. And we sat on it for years while the rest of the industry moved to Spark and its derivatives. We finally released it as Azure Data Lake Analytics (ADLA) but did a shit job of supporting/promoting it. We built Synapse, and it's garbage. We've now…

Post by mystraline » Wed, Mar 18, 2026, 5:44 PM UTC

Post by lokar » Wed, Mar 18, 2026, 5:46 PM UTC

pluc wrote: post #98

DrewADesign wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute contempt for their users at every level. It’s so transparent. This is the end game of anticompetitive practices for decades— they just don’t have to try anymore… for now. Some day they’ll either have to compete in good faith or sink. I doubt that will happen soon, but someday.

It's hard to argue against contempt but... I'm gonna try. It feels like at the end of the line it's just a checkbox someone gets without having to consider the consequences of the changes. Either it's too big or there's too many levels where decisions get made and handed down to drones (or AI), but the people who decide seem to have no concept of what their products are used for and the people who implement features…

Post by evan_a_a » Wed, Mar 18, 2026, 5:49 PM UTC

charles_f wrote: post #116

gertrunde wrote: post #16

It's not very clear from the article, but I get the feeling from the context that the 'pile of shit' quote referenced the package of documentation about the service rather than the service itself. (That seems to be the main complaint, that Microsoft never provided the clear information required to conduct the assessment properly).

> The tech giant’s “lack of proper detailed security documentation” left reviewers with a “lack of confidence in assessing the system’s overall security posture,” according to an internal government report reviewed by ProPublica. > > Or, as one member of the team put it: “The package is a pile of shit.” Yes, it seems pretty clear from that quote that the reviewer said the security package was a `pile of shit`, and pr…

Post by jen20 » Wed, Mar 18, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

benterix wrote: post #124

john_strinlai wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

any sufficiently large organization that is around for a decade or two trends towards spaghetti-access

And yet, somehow AWS managed to get this right-ish. They evolved, learned by making mistakes, and created de-facto standards (like object storage protocol) on the way, while at the same time supporting decades-old services. And I'm sure they'll withstand the current AI craze.