axelriet

4 ms·

31.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Lovely explanation :)
32.
by axelriet 6mo ago
“No, there is another”—Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back :) What you describe carries the risk that secrets end up in crash dumps and be exfiltrated. Imagine an attacker owns the host to some extent and can do that. The data is then on disk fir
33.
by axelriet 6mo ago
To be honest, I don’t think this is “company harming”—what would be harming is Azure being pwned if they didn’t know and did nothing, or failing SLA at the wrong time. Now they know.
34.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Maybe. That would be a dent in the shiny culture of trust Microsoft is proud to run on, though.
35.
by axelriet 6mo ago
That is an unexpected interpretation. Use the best tool for the job, also factoring what you (and your org) are comfortable with.
36.
by axelriet 6mo ago
You didn’t miss the smiley, did you? :)
37.
by axelriet 6mo ago
I didn’t say it went well. Actually I said it didn’t go well :(
38.
by axelriet 6mo ago
>risks to national security and sending letters to the board, really? Yes, really, and guess what the DoD did on Aug 29, 2025, exactly 234 days after I warned the CEO of potential risks? https://www.propublica.org/article
39.
by axelriet 6mo ago
It is, but “Microsoft runs on trust” they say. They also say the CEO’s inbox is always open, actually the CEO himself says it in the yearly mandatory training video on business conduct. So it should be safe, in theory, to openly speak out
40.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Former 1010 Overlake RnD here too :)
41.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Windows is ~500 times bigger than Azure, give or take, by machine count, and still many times larger by loc, modules, users, whatever else you want to measure. The heavy lifting (VM/containers, I/O, the things that cannot not be d
42.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Policies vary. The node folks get access to the nodes and the fabric controller by necessity. I guess we agree on the point where it should not be necessary, which echoes Cutler’s original intent of “no operational intervention.” This is no
43.
by axelriet 6mo ago
I was waiting for that comment :) Remember that everybody, eventually, calls into code written in C.
44.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Yes but this misses the underlying point: this is the same software. It suffers from the same defects. If your management stack keeps crashing and leaking VMs you are seeing a reduction in the operational capacity of the fleet. If you are s
45.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Exactly. But he’s right about management, first the problem must be acknowledged and that may make some people look bad.
46.
by axelriet 6mo ago
What I meant is that it’s customary to write to the Board through the Secretary as opposed to write directly or through some other channel.
47.
by axelriet 6mo ago
In all fairness, you are right :)
48.
by axelriet 6mo ago
The answer to your question is in the public releases. MS went from primary partner (under ROFR) to one of the options. They retain IP rights and API hosting, although in recent weeks we learned that OpenAI was planning a workaround with AW
49.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Great but then you tie your growth to the support people headcount. Normally you would see enormous costs upfront for R&D and bringing the thing up, then marginal costs when adding capacity (the hardware, mostly)—if capacity is proporti
50.
by axelriet 6mo ago
OK, *2025
51.
by axelriet 6mo ago
As an investor, this is exact how I feel. Everything was skyrocketing until OpenAI “diversified” mid-2025. The company’s market value has dropped more than 1 trillion since late October 1025, so the title is factual. You can rightfully argu
52.
by axelriet 6mo ago
There is a bunch of things a VM needs when first starting from a standard image. Think certificates and a few other things.
53.
by axelriet 6mo ago
You could imagine hosting the metadata service somewhere else. After all there is nothing a node knows about a VM that the fabric doesn’t. And things like certificates comes from somewhere anyway, they are not on the node so that service is
54.
by axelriet 6mo ago
GPUs is something that can be fixed simply by throwing money at it.
55.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Not on day one. Imagine it took two years to get there.
56.
by axelriet 6mo ago
We like things well done, but also integrity and accountability.
57.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Thanks. That reference is correct. The point is why those sessions were necessary because there is no reason, a-priori, to do manual touches on production systems, DoD or not.
58.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Thanks. That was exactly the plan. Full rewrites are extremely risky (see the 2nd System syndrome) as people wrongly assume they will redo everything and also add everything everyone always wanted, and fix all dept, and do it in a fraction
59.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Interesting point. The two stances are not contradictory. The end result is a new stack, so you are right saying that was the intent. However how you get there on a running system is through stepwise improvements based on componentization a
60.
by axelriet 6mo ago
Before or after publishing his article?

More ›