4 ms·

> be a slave to Microsoft Ok. So are you suggesting that the most practicable alternative is to be a slave to [list of 100+ other vendors]? Going out of your w

> be a slave to Microsoft Ok. So are you suggesting that the most practicable alternative is to be a slave to [list of 100+ other vendors]? Going out of your way to defenestrate a trillion dollar technology vendor is a bit bananas to me. If you are trying to run a business, I think you are completely fucking yourself over with this sort of attitude. How much business convenience are you willing to squander over these principles? And, are you truly upholding your principles on a consistent basis or is this a reductive "at least it's not Microsoft" line of thinking? Microsoft is a big place. Some parts good some parts bad. You may be leaving a lot of upside on the table by never considering them as an option. We are a "Microsoft shop", but we still use other vendors when it makes sense. I don't trip over myself trying to get 100% off AWS over some ridiculous tribalism. Their domain registration and S3 object stores work really well for us so we continue to use them, even when it creates a bit of integration overhead (SCIM identity sync w/ AAD, etc).

crabbone 3y ago
This would sound like ChatGPT if I didn't know better... All of your arguments are "made up" arguments, they contradict themselves or each other or assume some very unlikely situations, especially on behalf of what the post you replied to wanted to say, where it's clear it's not what it wanted to say. Let's dive in! > So are you suggesting that the most practicable alternative is to be a slave Clearly, the post you replied to doesn't suggest that. (But you went on arguing as if it did). > a trillion dollar technology vendor is a bit bananas to me. Nobody's killing Microsoft. But even if they were, maybe that's the right thing? You make no arguments not to. > If you are trying to run a business, I think you are completely fucking yourself over with this sort of attitude. The company I work for runs on Linux. The company I worked for before this runs on Linux. The company I worked for before the last one also runs on Linux. And the one before those two -- yes, you guessed it, also runs on Linux. The operating system chosen to run a business was never a serious factor in terms of whether the company succeeded or failed. By and large, it's not important. Are there specific technologies / products only available on Windows? -- You bet! What should be done about those? -- find a way asap to not make them exclusive to that platform. One of the most tragic situations in this respect is in medicine. Windows is ubiquitous in this field. To the point that I'd say that governments should step in and invest into the healthcare they control to change the situation. I.e. to do the complete opposite of what you are suggesting. > Microsoft is a big place. All under the same roof, with the same objectives and strategy, which are to screw you (the "Microsoft shop") in particular, but also, if possible even those who managed to stay away from them. The problems Microsoft creates for the world aren't somehow local to one or two departments of the company. The company, no matter how big is responsible for its policies.
- dcow 3y ago
  You said it best yourself: The operating system chosen to run a business was never a serious factor in terms of whether the company succeeded or failed. While I don’t think that statement is universally true because for certain products OS matters, but generally, why would anybody migrate away from windows just because of a security incident? Linux has had its fair share of RCEs and 0-day exploits. Are you saying Linux is intrinsically better?
  - horsewhales 3y ago
    Yes. In every possible way, yes.
  - icandoit 3y ago
    > Are you saying Linux is intrinsically better? Can we say that the market has spoken? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... I look forward to the day that windows is mostly a UI over WSL and things like the regsitry become a distant memory.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      > Can we say that the market has spoken? Microsoft aggressively abused its monopoly position in order to make sure that Linux would never win in the desktop market, and then inertia took over, so no we can't say that the market has said anything useful
    - rakoo 3y ago
      The market is an illusion. Until recently I had no means to buy Linux, I was forced to buy Windows (and it is illegal here, but all you get for going to a trial is not even the price of a licence). Even today the options are very few. The idea of a market works if it costs ~0 to enter a market, consumers have an infinite access to knowledge and infinite time to make a decision BUT make it in 1s when at the store, and also enough money so as to not be a problem. Basically, consumers have all the power and vendors have none. Nothing is really a market, and operating systems definitely shows it.
dcow 3y ago
From a security angle, every vendor you use will have a security incident at some point in time given enough time. The real question is how the incident is handled. My issue with the “Microsoft had a security incident obviously you should Migrate away” mentality is that this could be any one of your vendors and if your philosophy/strategy is to ditch your vendors whenever a security incident happens you’re not going to get very far. Anything else like ditching Microsoft but not vendor X or using this to justify no more MS is inconsistent logic. Edit: Adding a quote from the OP’s linked blog on the subject: > There is this well cited argument that cloud companies like Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and you-name-it are able to protect your personal data much better than you are able to. They have military grade security restrictions, better backup methods, and are able to do this much cheaper. > While this argument being absolutely true, people seem to forget that giving away your data to any third party is the root of many problems in the first place. It is not relevant to whom you are giving your data to. >Let me explain… So OP is arguing that this is why you can’t trust anybody not just MS. That’s a stance too, and perhaps for an incredibly security sensitive product the correct one, but definitely an impractical one for probably 98% of software products.
_jal 3y ago
> How much business convenience are you willing to squander over these principles I haven't seen such a clear statement of this idea in a very long time[1]. The "principles" you are trading for convenience include control of your network. [1] Last time was a talk by Bruce Schneier, a long time back. He famously declared if you give people a choice between security and dancing pigs, they'll take the pigs every time.
jrm4 3y ago
Ha. What do principles have to do with ANY of this? Microsoft promised a level of security and didn't deliver, and is now covering up, BADLY. The only logical solution is to start looking elsewhere, even if you can't switch right now. YOUR cope appears absolutely delusional.
dredmorbius 3y ago
If only there were an alternative software development modality in which development is distributed, source available, and modification permitted to any party, with open review and analysis for vulnerabilities, and far less capacity for lock-in. What you're arguing is essentially the Too Big to Fail proposition. The solution of which is to Not Let Things Get That Way. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail>
JohnFen 3y ago
> You may be leaving a lot of upside on the table by never considering them as an option. Maybe, but you're also avoiding a whole lot of downside. I don't think it's unreasonable to avoid Microsoft products, either as a business or as a person. Whether or not it makes business sense to depends on your business, of course, but there are plenty of successful businesses who avoid Microsoft.

crabbone 3y ago

This would sound like ChatGPT if I didn't know better... All of your arguments are "made up" arguments, they contradict themselves or each other or assume some very unlikely situations, especially on behalf of what the post you replied to wanted to say, where it's clear it's not what it wanted to say. Let's dive in! > So are you suggesting that the most practicable alternative is to be a slave Clearly, the post you replied to doesn't suggest that. (But you went on arguing as if it did). > a trillion dollar technology vendor is a bit bananas to me. Nobody's killing Microsoft. But even if they were, maybe that's the right thing? You make no arguments not to. > If you are trying to run a business, I think you are completely fucking yourself over with this sort of attitude. The company I work for runs on Linux. The company I worked for before this runs on Linux. The company I worked for before the last one also runs on Linux. And the one before those two -- yes, you guessed it, also runs on Linux. The operating system chosen to run a business was never a serious factor in terms of whether the company succeeded or failed. By and large, it's not important. Are there specific technologies / products only available on Windows? -- You bet! What should be done about those? -- find a way asap to not make them exclusive to that platform. One of the most tragic situations in this respect is in medicine. Windows is ubiquitous in this field. To the point that I'd say that governments should step in and invest into the healthcare they control to change the situation. I.e. to do the complete opposite of what you are suggesting. > Microsoft is a big place. All under the same roof, with the same objectives and strategy, which are to screw you (the "Microsoft shop") in particular, but also, if possible even those who managed to stay away from them. The problems Microsoft creates for the world aren't somehow local to one or two departments of the company. The company, no matter how big is responsible for its policies.

dcow 3y ago
You said it best yourself: The operating system chosen to run a business was never a serious factor in terms of whether the company succeeded or failed. While I don’t think that statement is universally true because for certain products OS matters, but generally, why would anybody migrate away from windows just because of a security incident? Linux has had its fair share of RCEs and 0-day exploits. Are you saying Linux is intrinsically better?
- horsewhales 3y ago
  Yes. In every possible way, yes.
- icandoit 3y ago
  > Are you saying Linux is intrinsically better? Can we say that the market has spoken? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... I look forward to the day that windows is mostly a UI over WSL and things like the regsitry become a distant memory.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    > Can we say that the market has spoken? Microsoft aggressively abused its monopoly position in order to make sure that Linux would never win in the desktop market, and then inertia took over, so no we can't say that the market has said anything useful
  - rakoo 3y ago
    The market is an illusion. Until recently I had no means to buy Linux, I was forced to buy Windows (and it is illegal here, but all you get for going to a trial is not even the price of a licence). Even today the options are very few. The idea of a market works if it costs ~0 to enter a market, consumers have an infinite access to knowledge and infinite time to make a decision BUT make it in 1s when at the store, and also enough money so as to not be a problem. Basically, consumers have all the power and vendors have none. Nothing is really a market, and operating systems definitely shows it.

dcow 3y ago

From a security angle, every vendor you use will have a security incident at some point in time given enough time. The real question is how the incident is handled. My issue with the “Microsoft had a security incident obviously you should Migrate away” mentality is that this could be any one of your vendors and if your philosophy/strategy is to ditch your vendors whenever a security incident happens you’re not going to get very far. Anything else like ditching Microsoft but not vendor X or using this to justify no more MS is inconsistent logic. Edit: Adding a quote from the OP’s linked blog on the subject: > There is this well cited argument that cloud companies like Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and you-name-it are able to protect your personal data much better than you are able to. They have military grade security restrictions, better backup methods, and are able to do this much cheaper. > While this argument being absolutely true, people seem to forget that giving away your data to any third party is the root of many problems in the first place. It is not relevant to whom you are giving your data to. >Let me explain… So OP is arguing that this is why you can’t trust anybody not just MS. That’s a stance too, and perhaps for an incredibly security sensitive product the correct one, but definitely an impractical one for probably 98% of software products.

_jal 3y ago

> How much business convenience are you willing to squander over these principles I haven't seen such a clear statement of this idea in a very long time[1]. The "principles" you are trading for convenience include control of your network. [1] Last time was a talk by Bruce Schneier, a long time back. He famously declared if you give people a choice between security and dancing pigs, they'll take the pigs every time.

jrm4 3y ago

Ha. What do principles have to do with ANY of this? Microsoft promised a level of security and didn't deliver, and is now covering up, BADLY. The only logical solution is to start looking elsewhere, even if you can't switch right now. YOUR cope appears absolutely delusional.

dredmorbius 3y ago

If only there were an alternative software development modality in which development is distributed, source available, and modification permitted to any party, with open review and analysis for vulnerabilities, and far less capacity for lock-in. What you're arguing is essentially the Too Big to Fail proposition. The solution of which is to Not Let Things Get That Way. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail>

JohnFen 3y ago

> You may be leaving a lot of upside on the table by never considering them as an option. Maybe, but you're also avoiding a whole lot of downside. I don't think it's unreasonable to avoid Microsoft products, either as a business or as a person. Whether or not it makes business sense to depends on your business, of course, but there are plenty of successful businesses who avoid Microsoft.