291–300 of 456 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's safe to say at this point. The more Microsoft relies on Copilot to solve its security problems, the more problems Microsoft will have.
Sounds like job security for Copilot!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This though is also true in the private sector.
In the private sector, there's a slightly more direct link between job underperformance and being fired.
We need more Red Hat and less Microsoft in the on-prem enterprise business. These exploitable vulnerabilities are unacceptable when your customers are the likes of DoD. No one considers Google anything less than an impenetrable fortress, but when it's some government entity responsible for keeping American lives safe it's like "ah yeah they probably have a vulnerable on-prem Sharepoint that could easily be pwned." So…
Microsoft invested in making integrated Windows-based business software and a big closed-source ecosystem and/or bought other tech companies that previously developed similar tech. Some of them older than Red Hat even Microsoft. Where is the equivalent tech on the Linux side that Red Hat developed? They simply didn't have a competitive enough alternative. Usually anything outside of cloud/web server space, you'd find…
For the longest time desktop Linux simply tried to clone Windows/macOS. Eventually Red Hat came to dominate GNOME enough that it developed a bit of its own personality, but the kernel and software distribution approach always held it back from even matching its competitors in usability, which wasn't even close to enough. Apple have executed excellently for decades and even they only made progress in the pure consumer space, the enterprise space is one they never tried to attack despite having the money needed to do so.
Capitalism isn't the problem here. Communist software isn't exactly famous for being impenetrable, in fact it's more famous for hardly existing at all. Google and Apple are highly capitalist, and their security stance is much better. The problems at MS are deeper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Isn't security the number one priority in those spaces? Money changing hands between suitable people who pop up together at the right social occasions is the priority.
This though is also true in the private sector.
For small companies, they just look at the "winner"'s operation, not including the "waste" of the other 39 "losers" that failed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's tons of Red Hat in federal IT, that's not the issue. It's just that Microsoft dominates the client-facing software business, and Red Hat has minimal presence there so while you might see RHEL desktops at e.g. NASA you're unlikely to see them anywhere else, and there's no real open source equivalent of SharePoint or Office out there. Maybe [0] will be one, eventually, but it would take a long long time to repl…
> Schleswig-Holstein, one of Germany’s 16 states, on Wednesday confirmed plans to move tens of thousands of systems from Microsoft Windows to Linux. The announcement follows previously established plans to migrate the state government off Microsoft Office in favor of open source LibreOffice. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/04/germa...
We need more Red Hat and less Microsoft in the on-prem enterprise business. These exploitable vulnerabilities are unacceptable when your customers are the likes of DoD. No one considers Google anything less than an impenetrable fortress, but when it's some government entity responsible for keeping American lives safe it's like "ah yeah they probably have a vulnerable on-prem Sharepoint that could easily be pwned." So…
> Why do Microsoft products enjoy a monopoly on the server in these sectors when more secure (Linux-based) options are far cheaper and widely deployed already? Because there is no FOSS solution even coming close to the level of out-of-the-box integration of Office 365. Thunderbird has zero integration with LibreOffice, LibreOffice has zero integration with Owncloud (or whatever else one might use), neither has integr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes “zero trust” sound like basic username/password from ancient times.
Think machine certs (stored in a TPM). Plus perimeter-enforced username/password/2FA. Plus additional policy checks, like making sure your machine is up to date on security patches. It doesn’t matter what network you are connecting from, but it does matter that you’re connecting from a company-issued laptop that’s in a trustworthy state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This though is also true in the private sector.
In the private sector, there's a slightly more direct link between job underperformance and being fired.
We need more Red Hat and less Microsoft in the on-prem enterprise business. These exploitable vulnerabilities are unacceptable when your customers are the likes of DoD. No one considers Google anything less than an impenetrable fortress, but when it's some government entity responsible for keeping American lives safe it's like "ah yeah they probably have a vulnerable on-prem Sharepoint that could easily be pwned." So…
Most enterprise PCs are Windows machines and integrate with Microsoft services easily. The only way Microsoft is going to lose the enterprise market is if enterprise PCs move away from Windows. But, for enterprises, the only reasonable migration away from Windows is Mac. JAMF Pro for Mac can be hosted on-premise on Linux. The majority of enterprise software runs on Mac. However, Macs are expensive so it's unlikely to…
MS for all its flaws, welcomed, targetted and tried to support scale operations in larger business environments (Imaging, AD, GP, SuS, bitlocker, ...).
Also, if your only fix a hardware problem option was to "visit the 'genious bar'" and wait 6 weeks for a machine to come back, vs the Dell/HP/... service of "same day onsite repair", what is IT going to prefer for client computers?