MS Teams is the worst software I've ever used. This is not hyperbole. A room full of monkeys on a typewriter would never create something as bad as teams.
Lync was worse.
Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities
41–50 of 264 posts
Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities
#42In 2020 a rash of anti-zoom propaganda that I'm almost certain was driven by Microsoft led to a company-wide prohibition on using anything other than Teams "for security reasons" where i worked. This was, I am almost certain, inspired by Microsoft corporate sales getting their hooks into management. This was largely because of news stories like "end to end encryption doesnt really work as advertised" and "if you leav…
So you are blaming Zoom security issues coverage on Microsoft without any proof and the comment asking for evidence is flagged. What's going on HN ?
Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is (by far) the most horrific piece of software I'm forced to used, the UI/UX is confusing, it's a battery killer, eats all the ram (though - that's common with all electron garbage), it somehow manages to make Bluetooth headsets drop out, it significantly impacts network performance when sharing video, a lot of bugs in the calendaring system.... I could go on, but damn I just hate it.
When I used to have my i9 16" MBP, the thing would go crazy and hit 90% CPU usage during web calls on Teams. I had to force myself to have it in clamshell mode to avoid crazy stuff going on.
On PC at least sometimes it helps to keep it on the laptop screen instead of an external screen.
Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention it's an Intel only binary, what's the point of using these dreadful electron cross-platform apps if they can't even be built as universal binaries.
I know right? Plus MS Teams is the among the most used apps in the enterprise world how come the only good version of it is only available in Windows 11 where most workplaces aren't even pushing it to their users. The way Microsoft handles Teams annoys the crap out of me the MacOS and Linux versions are left to die basically.
> the MacOS and Linux versions are left to die basically.
I hate Teams as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. On Linux, I have version 1.4.00.26453, vs 1.4.00.32771 on Windows 11 (installed fresh today).
Also, the Windows experience is just as atrocious as on Linux, so for once I don't get the feeling that Linux is a second-class citizen. If anything, all citizens are last-class.
Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities
#45I have a hard time understanding why MS is investing so much into VS Code yet so little progress is made on MS Teams (which in theory should be more important to them as it has broader usage?).
I think it's just the team that makes Teams is cut from a very different cloth than that who makes VS Code.
Smells a bit like someone in MS saw VS Code's success and drew the conclusion that it must be because it was built with Electron, and if only all the other bits of MS who churn out crappy gunk would use Electron then they'd churn out flawless gold instead.
Well, they churned out Teams, make up your own mind I guess.
Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities
#46I just noticed hat GitHub offers a security tab and CVE handling, showing which releases are affected and when it was patched (plus a security policy):
https://github.com/wireapp/wire-desktop/security/advisories/...
Design wise I’d much prefer the vulnerabilities listed upon clicking security, instead of a page that basically has 2 links.
Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities
#47What is the solution? More security education for general SWEs? It seems like whatever team worked on this feature never considered any security perspectives.
Education alone would not help if SWE in many (most?) large companies have no incentives to make software more secure. Even worse - caring about security can make their performance look bad. Companies try to improve security by inflating dedicated security teams which in many cases don't care about an actual product, its code (and infrastructure) but can annoy engineers by arbitrary rules/checklists/policies e. t. c. which IMHO rarely improve product security.
How to create this incentive is an open question but more laws and regulation doesn't look like a good answer to me.
Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities
#48In 2020 a rash of anti-zoom propaganda that I'm almost certain was driven by Microsoft led to a company-wide prohibition on using anything other than Teams "for security reasons" where i worked. This was, I am almost certain, inspired by Microsoft corporate sales getting their hooks into management. This was largely because of news stories like "end to end encryption doesnt really work as advertised" and "if you leav…
So you are blaming Zoom security issues coverage on Microsoft without any proof and the comment asking for evidence is flagged. What's going on HN ?
This is a plausible scenario, definitely worth considering especially given Microsoft's track record.
Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities
#49In 2020 a rash of anti-zoom propaganda that I'm almost certain was driven by Microsoft led to a company-wide prohibition on using anything other than Teams "for security reasons" where i worked. This was, I am almost certain, inspired by Microsoft corporate sales getting their hooks into management. This was largely because of news stories like "end to end encryption doesnt really work as advertised" and "if you leav…
At least in Germany the most common reason not to use Zoom has been privacy and data protection, not so much security. Haven't heard the security reason yet.
Re: Microsoft Teams: 1 feature, 4 vulnerabilities
#50I have a hard time understanding why MS is investing so much into VS Code yet so little progress is made on MS Teams (which in theory should be more important to them as it has broader usage?).
With VSCode, they had to prove themselves in order to bring people in. No one would have used it if it were as horrible as Teams.
With Teams, on the other hand, they've got nothing to "prove", they just need to show up. Enterprises eat it up automatically because they already use Office, so "it's free".
I also don't think they have any hope of attracting people from outside the MS ecosystem, so they don't even try. I'm actually quite surprised they've put out a Linux version which isn't any worse than the Windows one.