How M$ shakedown stupid corporations
-
@Obsolesce not even multi-billion companies. That's where it takes more time to get things implemented...
-
@dbeato said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Obsolesce not even multi-billion companies. That's where it takes more time to get things implemented...
No it doesn't. It's way faster. Or, it can be. But I know the real answer is it depends. Many SMBs barely ever stay current. One could, and it could be done in a day if they have one easy server to upgrade.
On the other hand some multi-billion $ companies are continually updating, staying on top of things. And because it's a priority, systems are current while other smaller companies are still on 2008 R2...
I'm not saying all, it does depend, but I think it's not good to generalize, because in my own personal experience, it's the smaller guy's who are much further behind.
-
To get accurate time sync on windows you install ntp. It's as simple as that.
The W32time service in Windows is to ntp, what timesyncd in linux is to ntp - a simple and not-accurate but often good enough time sync for clients.
BTW, already back in the Windows 3.1 days you had something called Tardis that you would run for NTP sync. Windows own time service was only designed to keep time reasonably synced for kerberos and stuff like that. I think it appears first in Windows 2000 Server.
-
@Obsolesce said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@dbeato said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Obsolesce not even multi-billion companies. That's where it takes more time to get things implemented...
No it doesn't. It's way faster. Or, it can be. But I know the real answer is it depends. Many SMBs barely ever stay current. One could, and it could be done in a day if they have one easy server to upgrade.
On the other hand some multi-billion $ companies are continually updating, staying on top of things. And because it's a priority, systems are current while other smaller companies are still on 2008 R2...
I'm not saying all, it does depend, but I think it's not good to generalize, because in my own personal experience, it's the smaller guy's who are much further behind.
from my exp it is the opposite.
-
It's not about the size of the company, it's how much regulation they are required to follow. Financial companies don't do that shit because they would fail common controls if they have poor practices or use vulnerable software.
Other examples would be NIST 800-53 controls or HITRUST. While they can be annoying to implement and not all are necessary relevant for everyone, they force a good overall security posture.
Without forcing security controls companies will continue to do stupid shit. I'd really like to see something like GDPR here in the US. HIPAA is in an obvious need of a revamp as well.
-
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
doesnt change that it is still stupid. Also in the Windows scene, 2012 is current. 2008 is old.
2012 is old. 2012 R2 is the oldest thing you can run and not be totally embarrassed. If your business runs 2012, it gives the impression that they are failing. 2012 R2, you can excuse as being old but marginally acceptable. I've not seen anyone that considered 2012 viable these days.
-
Aren't they talking about the hypervisors Azure is using? Which I believe used to be a modified version of server 2008 R2? So now being server 2016 would be good news, and thus the improved time syncing.
-
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
You have not seen much of "real business" then, I cannot disclose info, but I think this corp is like multi-million revenue.
But it doesn't sound like a serious business. You can make money in all kinds of incompetent ways. But not running like a business, not having the ability to execute.... sounds like a joke. There are reasons that sometimes companies get trapped and once in a great while there is a valid excuse for not being able to upgrade. But these are insanely rare.
-
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Dude you neglect alot of company that uses network isolation as security, and DMZ and LAN based security. They invest and policies and change controls forms instead of upgrading
This is, again, describing them as a joke of a business. They take time to write policies that force them to be insecure and be unable to properly maintain their computers? That's ridiculous.
That's like a company making a policy that they aren't allowed to change the oil in their cars.
This is super basic IT stuff. If a company can't do this, they aren't at a hobby level. Imagine if the accounting department said that they couldn't add numbers, you'd not excuse that as just how "big companies" work. Giant companies don't work this way, tiny companies don't work this way. Pathetic companies (and governments) work this way, but we don't excuse it, we mock it. It's a type of failure so basic, so well known, so avoidable (almost always), that companies like this can never talk about themselves without being totally embarrassed.
For example, if this was something to be proud of, or even "acceptable", you could name the company. But you can't name them because it would be shaming them and exposing them as being incompetent.
-
@flaxking said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Aren't they talking about the hypervisors Azure is using? Which I believe used to be a modified version of server 2008 R2? So now being server 2016 would be good news, and thus the improved time syncing.
Azure does not run on any version of Windows Server or modified version of Windows Server, at least today.
It runs on a highly-customized extremely hardened and stripped-down version of Hyper-V basically, but that is where all similarities end. The management layer on top of that is ARM.
But, Azure is WAY more than just VMs. Other Azure services run on Linux, such as ACS and many others. It's not about what they want to run on, it's about building Azure. Windows can't do what Azure does. Hyper-V can't do what Azure does. Linux can't do what Azure does. It's all highly customized platform of many things. Pieces of Hyper-V, pieces of WIndows, pieces of Unix/Linux, etc. Management layers on top of it such as ARM and others.
-
@Obsolesce said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
You have not seen much of "real business" then, I cannot disclose info, but I think this corp is like multi-million revenue.
Thats how it is ins real world, they get bloated and move slower, thats what happen when corp grow, if you keep it startup-ish vibe and "move fast and break things" you will be running the latest but not everyone is like that.
Besides windows painfull upgrading process helps you to stick to whats running.
And no on the client side, its all Win10 ... sadly we use Win10 to manage Linux machines
I hate that mremote/putty shitThis is false.
Big business makes quite an effort to stay current in the Windows world, especially if they are multi-billion $$ company. They HAVE to. It's not a choice.
It's constant change going on, all the time. 2019 is current, when a server is needed at all. Most are really going serverless when possible, lots of SaaS, Cloud, etc.
You might be thinking of U.S. defense companies. I mean they run old shit and pay millions and billions to maintain OAF software support.
I have to disagree: I've recently started a job as a GE/BH oil and gas consultant and they proudly stick on win 7...
They also stick with old unpatched software of all kinds... Maybe it is their italian BU only... But it is rather embarassing... -
@matteo-nunziati said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Obsolesce said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
You have not seen much of "real business" then, I cannot disclose info, but I think this corp is like multi-million revenue.
Thats how it is ins real world, they get bloated and move slower, thats what happen when corp grow, if you keep it startup-ish vibe and "move fast and break things" you will be running the latest but not everyone is like that.
Besides windows painfull upgrading process helps you to stick to whats running.
And no on the client side, its all Win10 ... sadly we use Win10 to manage Linux machines
I hate that mremote/putty shitThis is false.
Big business makes quite an effort to stay current in the Windows world, especially if they are multi-billion $$ company. They HAVE to. It's not a choice.
It's constant change going on, all the time. 2019 is current, when a server is needed at all. Most are really going serverless when possible, lots of SaaS, Cloud, etc.
You might be thinking of U.S. defense companies. I mean they run old shit and pay millions and billions to maintain OAF software support.
I have to disagree: I've recently started a job as a GE/BH oil and gas consultant and they proudly stick on win 7...
They also stick with old unpatched software of all kinds... Maybe it is their italian BU only... But it is rather embarassing...Proudly? What is there to be proud about running 10+ year old software? What are the chances that they are still running on the hardware from back then? Granted you fairly easily still get OEM machines with Windows 7 Pro will into 2016, if not even early 2017 - but still... The writing was on the wall.
Even with the number of hacks that happen every day, clearly enough hasn't happened to people/companies to make the rest stand up and take notice that running old software on machines that connect to the internet - and really, how much doesn't these days - to update their equipment. Unfortunately, this might be one of the first things for business where they can't use it until it dies (I'm talking about IT based technology here) - and I think that is the hard point. Of course businesses that are doing well, and understand efficiencies have been upgrading as the tech makes sense to, well before things like EOL software/hardware come into play, but then many other businesses that run on a shoe string just don't.
-
@Dashrender said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@matteo-nunziati said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Obsolesce said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Dashrender
You have not seen much of "real business" then, I cannot disclose info, but I think this corp is like multi-million revenue.
Thats how it is ins real world, they get bloated and move slower, thats what happen when corp grow, if you keep it startup-ish vibe and "move fast and break things" you will be running the latest but not everyone is like that.
Besides windows painfull upgrading process helps you to stick to whats running.
And no on the client side, its all Win10 ... sadly we use Win10 to manage Linux machines
I hate that mremote/putty shitThis is false.
Big business makes quite an effort to stay current in the Windows world, especially if they are multi-billion $$ company. They HAVE to. It's not a choice.
It's constant change going on, all the time. 2019 is current, when a server is needed at all. Most are really going serverless when possible, lots of SaaS, Cloud, etc.
You might be thinking of U.S. defense companies. I mean they run old shit and pay millions and billions to maintain OAF software support.I have to disagree: I've recently started a job as a GE/BH oil and gas consultant and they proudly stick on win 7...
They also stick with old unpatched software of all kinds... Maybe it is their italian BU only... But it is rather embarassing...Proudly?
He may be correct. I've talked to companies while living in Italy and it was common to take great pride is overspending, losing money, not having good Internet, etc. It's a massive problem there that is at the very core of why their economy is struggling. They don't look at business as business like we do here or in the UK or Germany. Culturally business is always seen as a hobby, always about emotions and pride, not about profits.
-
@scottalanmiller said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Dashrender said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@matteo-nunziati said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Obsolesce said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Dashrender
You have not seen much of "real business" then, I cannot disclose info, but I think this corp is like multi-million revenue.
Thats how it is ins real world, they get bloated and move slower, thats what happen when corp grow, if you keep it startup-ish vibe and "move fast and break things" you will be running the latest but not everyone is like that.
Besides windows painfull upgrading process helps you to stick to whats running.
And no on the client side, its all Win10 ... sadly we use Win10 to manage Linux machines
I hate that mremote/putty shitThis is false.
Big business makes quite an effort to stay current in the Windows world, especially if they are multi-billion $$ company. They HAVE to. It's not a choice.
It's constant change going on, all the time. 2019 is current, when a server is needed at all. Most are really going serverless when possible, lots of SaaS, Cloud, etc.
You might be thinking of U.S. defense companies. I mean they run old shit and pay millions and billions to maintain OAF software support.I have to disagree: I've recently started a job as a GE/BH oil and gas consultant and they proudly stick on win 7...
They also stick with old unpatched software of all kinds... Maybe it is their italian BU only... But it is rather embarassing...Proudly?
He may be correct. I've talked to companies while living in Italy and it was common to take great pride is overspending, losing money, not having good Internet, etc. It's a massive problem there that is at the very core of why their economy is struggling. They don't look at business as business like we do here or in the UK or Germany. Culturally business is always seen as a hobby, always about emotions and pride, not about profits.
Please provide an example of this pride you're talking about? Like a specific prideful sentence about those specifics you mentioned.
Crazy made up example "Man, it's awesome that we pay $500/m for 10/5 Mb internet access when I could simply make a phone call and get 200/20 for $200/m instead."
I suppose a slightly less crazy thing would be " man, I saved $2000 by not upgrading my Windows 2012 server to 2016 or 2019", but only slightly less crazy.
-
@Dashrender said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Please provide an example of this pride you're talking about? Like a specific prideful sentence about those specifics you mentioned.
Things like "If the bill isn't at least $50k, we won't consider the solution."
-
@Dashrender and...
"We don't care if it's a better solution, it's not what other people are doing here and not expensive enough so we can't do it."
-
@scottalanmiller said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Dashrender said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Please provide an example of this pride you're talking about? Like a specific prideful sentence about those specifics you mentioned.
Things like "If the bill isn't at least $50k, we won't consider the solution."
Who actually says this though? Who would specifically mandate spending way more money than required?
I get the stance of "If we aren't paying for it, then it can't be a viable solution" I deal with that conversation regularly about open source.
-
@DustinB3403 said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Who actually says this though? Who would specifically mandate spending way more money than required?
Believe it or not... MOST companies. The average company makes decisions like this. From little main street hobbies to the Fortune 100. They do it because they are lazy, because they want to look good to their friends, because they are foolish, because someone is sabotaging the business, because someone is getting a kick back, or because someone's buddy is the sales guy. It's everywhere.
-
@DustinB3403 said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
I get the stance of "If we aren't paying for it, then it can't be a viable solution" I deal with that conversation regularly about open source.
Ever heard of a "bid process" like governments always require? That's a codified version of this. Actually putting it on paper.
-
@scottalanmiller said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@DustinB3403 said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
I get the stance of "If we aren't paying for it, then it can't be a viable solution" I deal with that conversation regularly about open source.
Ever heard of a "bid process" like governments always require? That's a codified version of this. Actually putting it on paper.
You've mentioned that the bid process is bad in the past - though I'm not sure how it relates to Dustin's comment?
