4 ms·

This would be a large inconvenience and a disruption, but that doesn't justify one private company being considered critical infrastructure. This view is gener

This would be a large inconvenience and a disruption, but that doesn't justify one private company being considered critical infrastructure. This view is generally antithetical to innovation. Even if everyone already knows how to use Microsoft Office, it can and should be replaced if better software comes along.

maest 6y ago
To be fair, Excel is pretty much critical infrastructure at this point.
- lifeisstillgood 6y ago
  I think that's not true until Office365 kicks in. If Microsoft "goes down" today, just gets wiped out by some futures FX swap gone wrong, then all the Hedge funds, the doctors notes, the airplane checklists, they will pootle along fine for years. It's only when a central single point of failure is introduced does critical infrastructure become ticking time bomb. An open source peer to peer zoom would reduce such risk - and any sensible government would find that - cries of private business be damned
  - hnick 6y ago
    I think there are other cases. An auto-update that goes wrong could still cause wide ranging issues for non-365 Excel users. And if updates are disabled (or MS goes away), we can add yet-to-be-discovered security flaws to the mix. Neither of these would impact all (or maybe even most) users, but I think it'd impact enough to make a dent. In contrast, Office 365 is probably less susceptible to such flaws, trading them for others.
scottlamb 6y ago
> This would be a large inconvenience and a disruption, but that doesn't justify one private company being considered critical infrastructure. Is "critical infrastructure" some sort of official US Government designation? What automatically happens in response to this designation? Note that: * I only said teachers sometimes can't teach when it's down—a claim of fact, not any suggestion of how it should be handled. * The article's only extension of that is "Organizations that rely on video conferencing—and today, that’s most organizations—would be well served to put backup plans in place to minimize the disruption from future Zoom outages." > This view is generally antithetical to innovation. Even if everyone already knows how to use Microsoft Office, it can and should be replaced if better software comes along. I think you're suggesting calling Zoom "critical infrastructure" means it can't be replaced if a clearly superior video conferencing product is available? I disagree. In fact, it'd be reasonable to say this means it _should_ be replaced if Zoom can't give rock-solid reliability SLOs.
- hooande 6y ago
  You made a very compelling case about why it would be difficult for everyone to switch between software like the root comment describes. But the article goes a step further and says that Zoom specifically is of critical importance. I don't think this is true. Zoom is a brand, not a unique technology. If they suddenly made everyone pay $50/day, the world would switch to alternatives very quickly.
  - scottlamb 6y ago
    I think it's a question of timescales, disruption, and definition. If Zoom were totally unreliable or became expensive, within a quarter almost no one would use it. In that sense I agree with you. But the next week would be a disaster, and that may be enough to call it "critical infrastructure", whatever that means.

maest 6y ago

To be fair, Excel is pretty much critical infrastructure at this point.

lifeisstillgood 6y ago
I think that's not true until Office365 kicks in. If Microsoft "goes down" today, just gets wiped out by some futures FX swap gone wrong, then all the Hedge funds, the doctors notes, the airplane checklists, they will pootle along fine for years. It's only when a central single point of failure is introduced does critical infrastructure become ticking time bomb. An open source peer to peer zoom would reduce such risk - and any sensible government would find that - cries of private business be damned
- hnick 6y ago
  I think there are other cases. An auto-update that goes wrong could still cause wide ranging issues for non-365 Excel users. And if updates are disabled (or MS goes away), we can add yet-to-be-discovered security flaws to the mix. Neither of these would impact all (or maybe even most) users, but I think it'd impact enough to make a dent. In contrast, Office 365 is probably less susceptible to such flaws, trading them for others.

scottlamb 6y ago

> This would be a large inconvenience and a disruption, but that doesn't justify one private company being considered critical infrastructure. Is "critical infrastructure" some sort of official US Government designation? What automatically happens in response to this designation? Note that: * I only said teachers sometimes can't teach when it's down—a claim of fact, not any suggestion of how it should be handled. * The article's only extension of that is "Organizations that rely on video conferencing—and today, that’s most organizations—would be well served to put backup plans in place to minimize the disruption from future Zoom outages." > This view is generally antithetical to innovation. Even if everyone already knows how to use Microsoft Office, it can and should be replaced if better software comes along. I think you're suggesting calling Zoom "critical infrastructure" means it can't be replaced if a clearly superior video conferencing product is available? I disagree. In fact, it'd be reasonable to say this means it _should_ be replaced if Zoom can't give rock-solid reliability SLOs.

hooande 6y ago
You made a very compelling case about why it would be difficult for everyone to switch between software like the root comment describes. But the article goes a step further and says that Zoom specifically is of critical importance. I don't think this is true. Zoom is a brand, not a unique technology. If they suddenly made everyone pay $50/day, the world would switch to alternatives very quickly.
- scottlamb 6y ago
  I think it's a question of timescales, disruption, and definition. If Zoom were totally unreliable or became expensive, within a quarter almost no one would use it. In that sense I agree with you. But the next week would be a disaster, and that may be enough to call it "critical infrastructure", whatever that means.