5 ms·

>We brag to our customers about the fact that our only major technology vendor is Microsoft. If anyone bragged to me about this I would laugh in their face. Yo

>We brag to our customers about the fact that our only major technology vendor is Microsoft. If anyone bragged to me about this I would laugh in their face. You're putting your entire company at major risk. Sometimes it has benefits, and sometimes its necessary, to use something like Azure. But I would never actively seek tying your existence solely to a single company, nor would I be happy about it. And I would certainly never _brag_ about it. That's insane.

gregd 3y ago
Oh for crying out loud, I’m so over this holier than thou attitude. Every company and every vendor has strengths and weaknesses. Laughing in someone’s face for choosing to use one platform is ridiculous at best. My entire almost 30 year career has been Microsoft centered, except for brief stints with Novell, mainframes, and OS/2. And based on my anecdotal evidence over many companies and many years, Microsoft has been pretty solid.
- danseop08 3y ago
  Very bad rebuttal. You effectively just demonstrated you got stuck with MS for 30 years. You have not seen any others other than MS. You likely downplay the bad and overtly having good image of MS. My experience with multiple cloud systems CANNOT conclude Azure in the top 5. At best maybe 6th with occasionally hitting 5th or 4th depending on some specific tech metrics.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    AWS, Azure, GCP followed by everyone else.
- Jgrubb 3y ago
  I assume the poster to whom you're responding just hasn't been in the industry long enough to understand that the entire point of gigantic platforms like Microsoft or AWS is specifically to create ecosystems of vendors that provide service around that platform.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    You can tell by who is fighting the current. Some get paid in ideology, some in fiat. Which are they here for? That's the question. I'm just here to get paid, and enjoy working with others desiring the same outcome (strong opinions weakly held while bank acct goes brrr). We can chat war stories at the hotel bar with a comfortably large investment account from the work.
    - tpush 3y ago
      I guess that's why technology abuses the user so much these days.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Unethical implementations are distinct from agnostic technology implementation choices. I don’t care about the underlying tech (Windows, Linux, Mainframe), but I’m certainly never working at Meta, for example. New FedNow instant payments runs on a mainframe. New hotness? No! Built to run for decades? Yes.
- gregd 3y ago
  @danseop08 Stuck? What a weird and interesting thing to say since I deliberately chose and applied for jobs I was not only good at, but had the most experience in. And to then add in that I haven't seen anything other than Microsoft to boot? Don't you think that over a 30 year tech career that I've touched and used many different products and technologies?
  - dcow 3y ago
    meta note: if you can't see the reply link, click on the comment timestamp "X minutes ago" and then you should see the reply box.
- karim 3y ago
  All vendors have weaknesses, but few have Microsoft's cavalier attitude towards security. Case in point: https://www.wiz.io/blog/storm-0558-compromised-microsoft-key-enables-authentication-of-countless-micr https://www.wiz.io/blog/storm-0558-compromised-microsoft-key... If you bragged to me about being locked into Azure I would be very puzzled.
  - dcow 3y ago
    Meh. That whole issue is way overblown by the twitter researcher types trying to build buzz and make a name. It's a serious issue don't get me wrong but security incidents are a question of when not if and the dialog surrounding the issue doesn't come across as charitably capturing the scope and impact. Microsoft's response, which has been to handle the issue responsibly is far from the "radio silence coverup" and "the attackers are still in the network" and "you can't trust anything Microsoft signs anymore" reality you'd be inclined to believe if you only read the hype angle and believe the alarmist comments from other "any chance to bash on M$ is a heyday" types. I hadn't seen the article you linked though and will say it seems to be in good taste.
    - karim 3y ago
      They were able to spoof tokens for a long time, access mailboxes, etc. If this isn't enough for you, there's also ChaosDB, the cross-account vulnerability Palo Alto found (https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/azure-container-instances/ https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/azure-container-instance...), among many others. This isn't an isolated instance, that's a pattern.
- jdmg94 3y ago
  more power to you if you made a career on MS technologies, for a long time they were the big dog on the corporate world but to be fair there are better options there and actually bragging about vendor lock-in is ridiculous, if you're full in and it works for you good! But its not something to brag about, specially since MS refuses to fix their certificates after they got hacked by China
- arrakeenrevived 3y ago
  >Every company and every vendor has strengths and weaknesses. Yes, every company and every vendor does have strengths and weaknesses. That's why it's foolish to lock yourself in to only one vendor. If you locked yourself in to AWS, for example, you'd benefit from some great AWS services, but be stuck using the awfulness that is Workmail/Workdocs. Or you could lock yourself into MS and get Outlook/Office, but then be stuck using subpar offerings like Azure Functions or be a victim to their lackadaisical attitude towards security. Why would you ever choose to do either of those? Instead, you can choose both Microsoft for Outlook/Office, and AWS for other offerings that they are stronger at. Now you benefit from the strengths of both, while avoiding their weaknesses. If you _can't_ do that, there might be good reasons and that's fine. But to _intentionally_ not do that, and especially to _brag_ about not doing that is laughable, no "holier than thou" attitude required.
GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
Larger enterprise customers have problems with vendor finger pointing. Let's say you have a database transaction that intermittently fails and you decide to (pay) ask your vendors to help. The DB vendor says it must be the network or application, the network vendor doesn't seen any problems, the application platform vendor or consultant says it must be the network or database. Even getting all these people on one call takes a lot of time and isn't helpful. Honestly Microsoft isn't any better, but if buy Premier Support (expensive), you can eventually talk to the actual development teams. You also get a person in a suit who will talk to your execute team and take the blame, which is an important feature for managers.
maccard 3y ago
> You're putting your entire company at major risk. We use AWS but, the same argument applies here. It's far, far, far more likely that the developer who implemented the solution leaves than AWS or MS pull the rug from under us. Given the choice between setting up an ad-hoc solution with one developer, or using an existing managed offering, putting all your eggs in an employee when they have an average tenure of 2 years is _way_ more risky.
ako 3y ago
My expectation would be that anything other than Microsoft offers higher risk. They will most likely be around for a long time, and they keep their products around for a long time, with proof of focussing on backwards compatibility. Is it without risk? Probably not, but i doubt you can show me a IT company with lower risk.
robjan 3y ago
If you work in a regulated environment it's so much easier to explain to a regulator that you work with a single SOC 2 compliant, ISO 27001 certified cloud provider rather than a mishmash of services.

gregd 3y ago

Oh for crying out loud, I’m so over this holier than thou attitude. Every company and every vendor has strengths and weaknesses. Laughing in someone’s face for choosing to use one platform is ridiculous at best. My entire almost 30 year career has been Microsoft centered, except for brief stints with Novell, mainframes, and OS/2. And based on my anecdotal evidence over many companies and many years, Microsoft has been pretty solid.

danseop08 3y ago
Very bad rebuttal. You effectively just demonstrated you got stuck with MS for 30 years. You have not seen any others other than MS. You likely downplay the bad and overtly having good image of MS. My experience with multiple cloud systems CANNOT conclude Azure in the top 5. At best maybe 6th with occasionally hitting 5th or 4th depending on some specific tech metrics.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  AWS, Azure, GCP followed by everyone else.
Jgrubb 3y ago
I assume the poster to whom you're responding just hasn't been in the industry long enough to understand that the entire point of gigantic platforms like Microsoft or AWS is specifically to create ecosystems of vendors that provide service around that platform.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  You can tell by who is fighting the current. Some get paid in ideology, some in fiat. Which are they here for? That's the question. I'm just here to get paid, and enjoy working with others desiring the same outcome (strong opinions weakly held while bank acct goes brrr). We can chat war stories at the hotel bar with a comfortably large investment account from the work.
  - tpush 3y ago
    I guess that's why technology abuses the user so much these days.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Unethical implementations are distinct from agnostic technology implementation choices. I don’t care about the underlying tech (Windows, Linux, Mainframe), but I’m certainly never working at Meta, for example. New FedNow instant payments runs on a mainframe. New hotness? No! Built to run for decades? Yes.
gregd 3y ago
@danseop08 Stuck? What a weird and interesting thing to say since I deliberately chose and applied for jobs I was not only good at, but had the most experience in. And to then add in that I haven't seen anything other than Microsoft to boot? Don't you think that over a 30 year tech career that I've touched and used many different products and technologies?
- dcow 3y ago
  meta note: if you can't see the reply link, click on the comment timestamp "X minutes ago" and then you should see the reply box.
karim 3y ago
All vendors have weaknesses, but few have Microsoft's cavalier attitude towards security. Case in point: https://www.wiz.io/blog/storm-0558-compromised-microsoft-key-enables-authentication-of-countless-micr https://www.wiz.io/blog/storm-0558-compromised-microsoft-key... If you bragged to me about being locked into Azure I would be very puzzled.
- dcow 3y ago
  Meh. That whole issue is way overblown by the twitter researcher types trying to build buzz and make a name. It's a serious issue don't get me wrong but security incidents are a question of when not if and the dialog surrounding the issue doesn't come across as charitably capturing the scope and impact. Microsoft's response, which has been to handle the issue responsibly is far from the "radio silence coverup" and "the attackers are still in the network" and "you can't trust anything Microsoft signs anymore" reality you'd be inclined to believe if you only read the hype angle and believe the alarmist comments from other "any chance to bash on M$ is a heyday" types. I hadn't seen the article you linked though and will say it seems to be in good taste.
  - karim 3y ago
    They were able to spoof tokens for a long time, access mailboxes, etc. If this isn't enough for you, there's also ChaosDB, the cross-account vulnerability Palo Alto found (https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/azure-container-instances/ https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/azure-container-instance...), among many others. This isn't an isolated instance, that's a pattern.
jdmg94 3y ago
more power to you if you made a career on MS technologies, for a long time they were the big dog on the corporate world but to be fair there are better options there and actually bragging about vendor lock-in is ridiculous, if you're full in and it works for you good! But its not something to brag about, specially since MS refuses to fix their certificates after they got hacked by China
arrakeenrevived 3y ago
>Every company and every vendor has strengths and weaknesses. Yes, every company and every vendor does have strengths and weaknesses. That's why it's foolish to lock yourself in to only one vendor. If you locked yourself in to AWS, for example, you'd benefit from some great AWS services, but be stuck using the awfulness that is Workmail/Workdocs. Or you could lock yourself into MS and get Outlook/Office, but then be stuck using subpar offerings like Azure Functions or be a victim to their lackadaisical attitude towards security. Why would you ever choose to do either of those? Instead, you can choose both Microsoft for Outlook/Office, and AWS for other offerings that they are stronger at. Now you benefit from the strengths of both, while avoiding their weaknesses. If you _can't_ do that, there might be good reasons and that's fine. But to _intentionally_ not do that, and especially to _brag_ about not doing that is laughable, no "holier than thou" attitude required.

GartzenDeHaes 3y ago

Larger enterprise customers have problems with vendor finger pointing. Let's say you have a database transaction that intermittently fails and you decide to (pay) ask your vendors to help. The DB vendor says it must be the network or application, the network vendor doesn't seen any problems, the application platform vendor or consultant says it must be the network or database. Even getting all these people on one call takes a lot of time and isn't helpful. Honestly Microsoft isn't any better, but if buy Premier Support (expensive), you can eventually talk to the actual development teams. You also get a person in a suit who will talk to your execute team and take the blame, which is an important feature for managers.

maccard 3y ago

> You're putting your entire company at major risk. We use AWS but, the same argument applies here. It's far, far, far more likely that the developer who implemented the solution leaves than AWS or MS pull the rug from under us. Given the choice between setting up an ad-hoc solution with one developer, or using an existing managed offering, putting all your eggs in an employee when they have an average tenure of 2 years is _way_ more risky.

ako 3y ago

My expectation would be that anything other than Microsoft offers higher risk. They will most likely be around for a long time, and they keep their products around for a long time, with proof of focussing on backwards compatibility. Is it without risk? Probably not, but i doubt you can show me a IT company with lower risk.

robjan 3y ago

If you work in a regulated environment it's so much easier to explain to a regulator that you work with a single SOC 2 compliant, ISO 27001 certified cloud provider rather than a mishmash of services.