5 ms·

Do they though? My friends that work IT in corporate settings seem to tear their hair out every time MS (or anyone) tries to auto-push an update that they have

Do they though? My friends that work IT in corporate settings seem to tear their hair out every time MS (or anyone) tries to auto-push an update that they haven't had a chance to rigorously test for compatibility and security with their existing stuff. Some of them have fiduciary responsibility to not add/change/upgrade software without carefully testing it first. That doesn't seem compatible with the trajectory Windows is now on (and that Apple has been on for some time).

maehwasu 7y ago
I think he means more that you can make it an operating expenditure and not a capital one, for accounting.
paulryanrogers 7y ago
> Some of them have fiduciary responsibility to not add/change/upgrade software without carefully testing it first. While that makes a lot of sense will it remain a requirement if/when it's simply not a choice with any major vendor? Can smaller vendors still provide that choice and meet all the necessary certificates that such industries often also require? (Serious question, not trolling.)
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  > if/when it's simply not a choice with any major vendor? I am reasonably confident that RedHat will continue to cover this ~forever, if it comes to that.
- davidvgoliath 7y ago
  There is WSUS. Group Policy is a very powerful tool. Get control of your updates!
  - AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
    This is one of the things that disgust me about dealing with Windows. Oh, you want to properly administrate your Windows? You can't unless you buy another Windows! But a more expensive one! You are unable to wade through our byzantine licensing maze? Buy another Windows to manage that! Expensive Microsoft solutions for problems created by Microsoft. And then there's this entire army of sods that think this is the best thing since sliced bread, telling you "Isn't it fantastic that Microsoft provides this wonderful solution?"
chank 7y ago
They do. I work in a very large corp. 25k+ employees, 5bn+ net revenue per year. Our entire IT dept. is outsourced, we're on office365, rent all of our hardware which is refreshed at regular intervals as part of the deal. Everything developed native cloud, all our offices are rented. We basically do everything we can to reduce capital expenditures.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  It's funny that entire IT architectures have evolved just to optimize tax reduction and stock market interaction because of rules about opex and capex. I wonder though whether this optimization hasn't created a brittleness in operations, where shocks due to security lapses or outsourced provider probls become unrecoverable.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jyrkesh 7y ago
    It's not "just about rules". Having the flexibility to spend slightly more or less based on fluctuations in your workforce, or customer demand, is highly preferable to making n-year bets on your needs, even if you end up paying a 10% premium on average for that stability.
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      It is possible to run large portions of your operations in the cloud and still have in-house admin expertise. Having your own servers is definitely much cheaper than a 10% saving, depending on whether your connectivity needs are more relevant. Servers from hetzner or such like are similarly much cheaper than AWS/Azure. One thing I definitely wouldn't run if I could help it would be email, going O365 or gsuite saves a ton of effort that doesn't contribute to the bottom line and has significant security advantages. But 'everything azure' or 'everything aws' has its own challenges.

maehwasu 7y ago

I think he means more that you can make it an operating expenditure and not a capital one, for accounting.

paulryanrogers 7y ago

> Some of them have fiduciary responsibility to not add/change/upgrade software without carefully testing it first. While that makes a lot of sense will it remain a requirement if/when it's simply not a choice with any major vendor? Can smaller vendors still provide that choice and meet all the necessary certificates that such industries often also require? (Serious question, not trolling.)

yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
> if/when it's simply not a choice with any major vendor? I am reasonably confident that RedHat will continue to cover this ~forever, if it comes to that.
davidvgoliath 7y ago
There is WSUS. Group Policy is a very powerful tool. Get control of your updates!
- AnonymousPlanet 7y ago
  This is one of the things that disgust me about dealing with Windows. Oh, you want to properly administrate your Windows? You can't unless you buy another Windows! But a more expensive one! You are unable to wade through our byzantine licensing maze? Buy another Windows to manage that! Expensive Microsoft solutions for problems created by Microsoft. And then there's this entire army of sods that think this is the best thing since sliced bread, telling you "Isn't it fantastic that Microsoft provides this wonderful solution?"

chank 7y ago

They do. I work in a very large corp. 25k+ employees, 5bn+ net revenue per year. Our entire IT dept. is outsourced, we're on office365, rent all of our hardware which is refreshed at regular intervals as part of the deal. Everything developed native cloud, all our offices are rented. We basically do everything we can to reduce capital expenditures.

angry_octet 7y ago
It's funny that entire IT architectures have evolved just to optimize tax reduction and stock market interaction because of rules about opex and capex. I wonder though whether this optimization hasn't created a brittleness in operations, where shocks due to security lapses or outsourced provider probls become unrecoverable.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jyrkesh 7y ago
  It's not "just about rules". Having the flexibility to spend slightly more or less based on fluctuations in your workforce, or customer demand, is highly preferable to making n-year bets on your needs, even if you end up paying a 10% premium on average for that stability.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    It is possible to run large portions of your operations in the cloud and still have in-house admin expertise. Having your own servers is definitely much cheaper than a 10% saving, depending on whether your connectivity needs are more relevant. Servers from hetzner or such like are similarly much cheaper than AWS/Azure. One thing I definitely wouldn't run if I could help it would be email, going O365 or gsuite saves a ton of effort that doesn't contribute to the bottom line and has significant security advantages. But 'everything azure' or 'everything aws' has its own challenges.