A new meaning to
"Clueless in Seattle" brought to you by Wiley E. Coyote.
Earlier this month, Microsoft gave the world .NET Framework 4.7 and urged users to install it for the usual reasons: more fun bits to play with and a security improvements. But two days later the company urged Exchange users not to install it ASAP, because it hadn't validated it yet. Last Friday - 10 days after the launch of …
Keystone Cops every day.
A great laugh but honestly, they need to grow up and face the facts that their software testing is crap and they should stop releasing anything until they get that sorted out.
More like 'release and be dammed' than 'softly softly'.
Thr World of MS is full of danger. You have been warned.
The Windows Update Team must be down to one full time employee by now. This poor sod is the only one who knows how to and when to issue a patch. Yes, I know that is not true, but for all the fubars that have occurred since April 2015, you get the impression that they are flailing helplessly.
There was an entire build that got released by mistake, bogus OEM drivers that mysteriously appear, updates that break all manner of windows products and now an update that has not been fully validated. I am wondering if the Windows 10 patching scheme (and the W7/8 rollouts) have become so unwieldy that they have lost control of it all.
It also appears that it is not a priority to get the fixing, fixed.
Perhaps it's to encourage us to embrace the cloud? Maybe they haven't followed that idea through far enough. If everything is in the cloud, we might not need Windows (on "real" desktops) at all, cut everything back, fire more of the staff and sell lots of their own server based stuff - A bit like a mainframe, only shinier and not so reliable...
I can see many upsides for cloud based computing.
As a company, you don't have loads of servers you need to update. This will reduce costs, not only in the purchase of new hard and software, but electricity, space and staff. The cost reductions are offset somewhat by the need to install a beefy connection, and the costs of maintaining cloud servers, but still it's likely to be considerably cheaper.
There are serious downsides though.
1) You are introducing a lot of extra hardware/software between you and your servers. If the servers are in house, you will have probably a router, a few switches and several network cables. Moving the servers off site, you also introduce a lot of hardware/software run by your telecoms provider. In computing, as in life, introducing more stuff that can go wrong increases the likelihood that something will. Yes, you can introduce redundant hardware and links, but that costs money, and one of the selling points of basing everything in the cloud is that it reduces costs.
2) With the reduced staff, you may not have staff that can fix things if the system fails.
3) One person, typing the wrong commend, or pulling the wrong cable, could potentially affect hundreds, or thousands of customers rather than just one. OK, that's not much of compensation if you are affected, but it's still a downside.
You missed one. "When you outsource critical business functionality you have put your company's future in someone else's hands." And your outages will just become pat of the other 99.999%'ers who are also down and have zero leverage to get prioritized.
Here, have some service credits to make up for all those lost sales and lost productivity. K thx
So, to sum up: The "advantages" of cloud computing aggregate to the suits in the Corporate Suite, while the disadvantages fall on the poor sods who are the developers, and the poorer sods who become the "customers".
Have I got that right?
Ain't that (Corporate) America!
"You can set up your own cloud servers y'know."Ahem. You missed the "in-house" part.
But I have mine set up "in-house". It's in my mate's house, in the closet in his spare bedroom. Only because he has an all-you-can-eat internet feed and I can't afford to do much myself mind, if I could I'd have it in my own house...
Judging by the level of Downvoting that is given to any post critical of MS, it seems that the MS Release Engineering team are busy deflecting criticism from their failings rather than getting the problems fixed.
A sign of the times perhaps. MS gives up on engineering and employs only PR people?
Judging by the level of Downvoting that is given to any post critical of MS, it seems that the MS Release Engineering team are busy deflecting criticism from their failings rather than getting the problems fixed.
So far on this thread it's only the one of them..
So..
That'd be the entire team then?
> ... each part is desperately trying to look after itself, rather than thinking of the bigger picture.
Thankfully. Given their ability to extract from the majority of the worlds computers, and an absence of morals, if they were well focused they'd be a larger problem than they are now.
Google just announced dropping Gmail Inbox Ad slurp because of falling Cloud sales vs Amazon/M$. Corporate customers complained of confusion about email slurp. Wonder if M$ will be forced to drop Win-10 slurp eventually, as Enterprise customers start questioning how well firewalled off they really are from Home user guinea-pigs like in Google scenario. Views?
You ignore it by paying extra cash to be a business user (who can delay updates for a month or two) rather than a beta tester home user.
That's god advice, but, considering what they did to their 'Professional' version - think I'll play it safer and just not run their crap if I can avoid it.
It affects MS Exchange. I doubt many exchange admins in biggish enterprises are applying patches immediately unless there is a serious security exploit they need to fix. They use WSUS or whatever it's called now and do it when they are ready and after the thickos have tested it for them in the wild.
They use WSUS or whatever it's called now and do it when they are ready and after the thickos have tested it for them in the wild.
Thickos.. That would be those who don't qualify for the enterprise levels and therefore have updates forced on them when MS wants, regardless of what it breaks?
So you're saying most MS users are "thickos"?
I've got some users here who aren't really happy to be unable anymore to find mails in Outlook 2016 following an Office update.
You don't push update: you are fucked because of vulns left wide open
You push update: you are fucked because it breaks basic functionalities.
It's like asking if you prefer being put at stake or quartered.
I wonder if I'll be able to convince top management that Google Apps could be a nice alternative to that bloody Exchange/Outlook evil pair...
It's like asking if you prefer being put at stake or quartered.
Since The Three Stooges have already been mentioned in this thread, I refer to them for the "correct" answer to this conundrum. The answer (according to Curly) is the stake, because a hot stake is better than a cold chop.
I like the way all through this set of comments there is one or two downvote to anything against MS which obviously doesn't do any testing or logical release management.
Like there is an ever present MS employee trying his best to suggest this isn't an MS cock up of possibly huge proportions. (how many people use Skype, or exchange, or both?)
The lonely fanbois crying out against the anger.
Well I don't think people need to take them personally and feel the need to comment because they got a downvote, they really are piddling trivial things that matter less than toe-splash.
That may perhaps be your opinion, but others here share a different opinion.
And I do understand the desire to know why an accurate response to a question can sometimes get so many downvotes without challenge or explanation. That's not taking it personally, that's wondering if you're mistaken and wanting to know what was wrong with what you posted.
towards "The only safe thing is to tick the 'always update without waiting for approval' box" nattering from the "all your box are belong to us" crowd (vendors, carriers, TLAs...) into perspective. OK, only for those who hear about it at all, the less than .01% of folks who get their news from ElReg or the like, rather than their local news station.
Again: Why must emergency security updates also include "oh, by the way, now we send all your family data to somebody named Blofeld, because we can (it's in the EULA!) " appendages? And as pointed out above, if you don't tick the box, you can choose letting bored teenagers also get that Blofeld feed or have all your documents rendered in Comic Sans (if you are lucky enough. That's one of the lighter punishments for updating by other means than buying a whole new computer).
As soon as those of us who remember not having to recompile the world (or buy the update of all apps) every time a font was added (and resent how it works now) succumb to old age, humanity will presumably enter a true wonkers paradise.
That is almost as funny as the time Installing IE 9 utter broke the management console for Exchange 2007 and 2010. And by broke meaning 'you can open it, but you get an error message trying to close it' which meant that you had to whip open task manager and kill the underlying MMC process that it was running. Bunches of enjoyment from that technet community thread.
Oh wait, that's not funny at all.