3 ms·
I’m not a regulator, but I think the solution may actually be to break up Microsoft. Right now, there is a product that is critical to the economy: Windows. By
by amluto 2y ago
I’m not a regulator, but I think the solution may actually be to break up Microsoft.
Right now, there is a product that is critical to the economy: Windows. By “Windows” I mean the OS, its security mechanisms, and its update mechanisms. Changing Windows to a multi-source model seems challenging, to say the least. Right now, though, Windows is not merely single-source, but that single source also makes OneDrive, Office, a not-very-secure cloud offering, ads, AI, etc. Most of the revenue comes from crap layered on top of Windows.
If just the base Windows were split out, then the company behind it could focus on making a secure base. Maybe they could actively mitigate attacks, even from the rest of the layers (e.g. the “AI” recording crap, OneDrive, telemetry, etc). And maybe CrowdStrike would become unnecessary because the Windows company itself could offer adequate endpoint security.
Getting this right would be hard, but having the base OS for much of the world in the hands of Microsoft is not going so well.
- jacooper 2y agoIronically I think Microsoft losing windows won't hurt them that much, it will however benefit consumers for sure.
- seanmcdirmid 2y agoI don’t think Windows would survive for very long without other Microsoft businesses subsidizing their revenue. It might go on for a few years, but it would basically move up Linux and OSX quickly to corporate desktop status, while Windev goes bankrupt as a non-viable business.
- amluto 2y agoThe monetization model would indeed be complicated. But, as an off the cuff estimate, there are several billion Windows installations in the world. A small fee (say $2/year on average) would easily cover an excellent engineering operation to maintain Windows. And appropriate regulation could force everyone to use Windows or a similarly independent OS, and the whole industry could survive this.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- TeaBrain 2y agoThis is the narrative that Crowdstrike wants the public to believe. Crowdstrike did the same thing to Debian machines running their software previously. The use of these kernel-level security software packages with arguably negligible benefit compared to the experienced risks could instead be reassessed.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y agoAIUI new Debian supports enough ebpf that it doesn't need an unsandboxed kernel module, which is a useful point of comparison. Though yeah, an OS can only do so much to limit a problem running with root, and security software legitimately needs a lot of power.
- eddyg 2y agoNot just Debian. RHEL too. Kernel panic observed after booting 5.14.0-427.13.1.el9_4.x86_64 by falcon-sensor process : https://access.redhat.com/solutions/7068083 https://access.redhat.com/solutions/7068083
- number6 2y agoThere was also a Microsoft 365 outage. On the other hand is Microsoft also known to push faulty updates