... what was the point of this article?
16 posts • joined 10 Dec 2010
... what was the point of this article?
It's about the contracts and procurement processes.
Govt. procurement is simply not up to scratch when going up against the big suppliers. Their commercial and contracts people are far more experienced and far better at negotiating contracts that the civil servants are. This is why you end up paying for decommissioned sites because no-one thought to put in a clause to the contract that meant you didn't have to pay for stuff you didn't use any more.
It's the same across the board. Look at the excesses of MoD spending caused by badly drafted contracts. Or spending on NHS supply contracts rather than IT.
Anyone dumb enough to try and use one of these is more likely to kill themselves than anyone else, thus removing themselves from the gene pool. Job Done.
Those pointing out how smart they were about renewing early etc are missing the point. The old system worked very well and had done so for number of years. Even if you left it to the last minute it was one of the few Gvt. services that could be relied on to work when you needed it.
Whatever the fucktards at GDS did, they broke what was previously a perfectly good service.
"...and GDS, a state IT contractor largely staffed by web designers."
Oh come on, that's being most unfair to web designers.
or can I just drink the free beer?
Except they aren't.
Rule one only applies when your customer can go elsewhere. Like it or not, there are no practical alternatives for enterprise class operations who want to maintain continuity for their desktop environments. Despite all the discussion about porting to Linux or use of VM's or compatibility modes etc, in practical terms these are as much if not more work to implement in the current timescales than going down the MS upgrade path.
Realistically, if you wanted to get of the Windows merry-go-round you should have started planning the jump 5 years ago when MS extended the end of life to 2014. You'd be about ready by now if you had.
As far as MS are concerned in this, Rule One can go screw itself.
You can whinge all you like about whether MS is right or not to do this, it doesn't change the fact that they are doing it. They told the world they were going to do it, gave the world an extra FOUR YEARS to deal with it and now everyone is getting all upset that they are actually doing what they said they were going to do 12 years ago.
The numbers of XP desktops out there, still in daily production use indicates that the IT world has had it's head up it's collective arse the whole time.
Whinging about it and claiming the customer is always right is just the verbal equivalent of ramming it that bit further up there, when push comes to shove you're still going to end up eating shit.
This isn't embarrassing for MS at all.
They announced end of life of XP in 2002. 12 Years ago. They refreshed the date in 2008, 6 years ago. The only people this is embarrassing for are the ones who have sat on their hands for over a decade and done nothing to plan for the change.
2002 - Windows XP EOL announced as 2010
2008 - Windows XP EOL extended to 2014
2009 - Windows 7 released
2011 - Windows 8 released.
2014 - Windows XP EOL.
So EOL on XP was announced 7 years before Windows 7 was released and Win8 hadn't even been announced. Windows 7 has been available for 5 years and Windows 8 (for all it's issues) has been available for 3 years.
So again, how exactly is it embarrassing for MS that end customers haven't pulled their heads out of their arses and done something about it in spite of having 12 years to plan for it?
It's an automated build process, you did the work for them by ticking the box.
The "problem" comes down to one of risk management. What is the risk to the assets involved versus what access to those assets is worth to the organisation and what it would cost them should they be compromised.
Once you have an understanding of the risks and costs you can start to look at mitigating those risks and the cost of mitigation versus value of the assets and the benefit of allowing mobile access.
In technology terms the solutions are already out there, the question is; do they provide a sufficient reduction in risk to justify the expenditure against the business benefit?
If I plug my MacBook into one of these I can't use the screen, only my desktop monitor. FIne if you only ever use one display, but not so great for those of us who run the MacBook acreena nd a seperate monitor as well.
Mercedes is a girls name.
Then they are going to have their work cut out. According to the Anonymous IRC twitter feed they have over 20k accounts closed so far.
This isn't a case of opportunist hackers this is serious organised crime getting involved.
It works because anyone can apply for a carbon trading account subject to some basic, but it seems easily faked, background checks.
The mechanism is that they will compromise a legitimate trading account and transfer the carbon certificates to one or more compromised accounts or companies in another countries. Most have been in the former eastern block countries. They end up in a dummy which is then used to sell the certificates on the open spot market and the resulting cash siphoned off.
Because the only identification on the certificates is the serial number, and the only way to check ownership is to go back to the original issuing body and follow the trail of trades associated with those certificates traders assume that ownership is proof of legitimacy. Once the certificates have been stolen the thieves disappear with the cash. The whole issue is compounded by the fact that in a number of jurisdictions there is no requirement for the purchaser to return goods when they are shown to have been stolen.
By the time the whole mess is sorted out, ownership proved and the trades traced the perpetrators are long gone.
the carbon trading market is a reality. What is also a reality is the laughable levels of security in place around what is a multi-million Euro market.
Account security it limited to a pre-generated user ID and passwords on a 90 day expiry. No tokens, no additional verification of identity, just a simple account that lets you trade millions of carbon certificates. Apart from a rather perfunctory plea not to answer phishing emails there is no further advice on the registry website on securing the accounts or managing access.
For something this valuable ( Holcim Romania lost something in the region of 20M Euro ) you'd think they could put in some decent security or at least offer advice to their account holders.
Same glass but fill with crushed ice first.
Brown or Green booze in first ( Tia Maria, Kahlua / Midori, Creme de Menth)
The Ice makes it easier to layer up the drinks and adds some texture to the whole thing.
Slice of Lemon for the sun and a straw. Then drink. Carefully.