4 ms·
In the case of msft/crowdstrike isn't this exactly the opposite of what HN rallies against? The users installed crowdstrike on their own machines. Why should mi
by vips7L 2y ago
In the case of msft/crowdstrike isn't this exactly the opposite of what HN rallies against? The users installed crowdstrike on their own machines. Why should microsoft be the arbiter of what a user can do to their own system?
- preciousoo 2y agoMicrosoft determines who they give root access signing keys to
- snarfy 2y agoBecause the EU required them to.
- preciousoo 2y agoI’ve read that story, it inspired my question. Such a requirement wouldn’t be out of bounds with the regulation
- advael 2y agoThey automatically occupy that position because in practice no user of a microsoft system can audit the entire "supply chain" of that system, unlike one built from open-source components. Any "control" someone has over "their own" system is ultimately incomplete when there is a company that owns and controls the operating system itself and has the sole power to both fix and inspect it
- Dalewyn 2y ago>no user of a microsoft system can audit the entire "supply chain" of that system, Yes you can, you can access the source code to audit it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative