I am sitting in my office and actually laughing out loud!
62 posts • joined 17 May 2016
I am sitting in my office and actually laughing out loud!
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
For some large corporates, Azure is probably a very good fit - they are often Microsoft shops and this extends nicely.
However, a startup, or a company that defines it's value through unique technology offerings will probably be better suited in AWS.
I think that Google will try to go more for AWS's clients, than Azure.
I have implemented OneDrive for Business as part of 365 three times and I have seen some pretty big changes.
Being able to go up to 5TB is nice and working with researchers, they have big requirements for storage. But in reality, most of the larger data entities live on the file server, because who wants to upload/download images that are measured in hundreds of gigabytes?
So as soon we told everyone to not put their images up there, the top users of OneDrive storage were nowhere near 500GB.
So I wound up using the 5TB quota for change management (it works and you get all the space).
I have implemented them in a previous role and I plan to do so again.
What I find amusing is organisations that have spent big money on a VC system, with the touch panel, the cables poking out of the middle; the extra microphone & speakers; the mini rack of stuff you need to run it - and then at the other end or the room, or behind the dropdown screen, is the Whiteboard and there are the attendees taking photos and trying to figure out how to use both at once.
I like some of the features of Googles, but the scope is more limited and you cannot present the screen and the room at the same time.
Version 1 comes with 84" (which is apparently no longer being produced), so if I have two ot three side by side, I wonder how using them as a whiteboard will work?
My guilty pleasure is World of Warships
There is a $USD50 pencil option?!?! Thank FireTruck - I was worried it would be out of reach to most parents.
To recap, here are the main differences between the new 9.7-inch iPad and the previous generation:
it supports Apple Pencil
it has the A10 Fusion chip
it comes in a new shade of gold that's slightly pinker (though not as pink as the original rose gold)
Tell me, can my twins both use it for school work? (No - only one iTunes account)
Is it a device that lots of people use in the workplace/not for electronic babysitting? (No - just no)
Will there be a discount to make it more school friendly? (No)
Does it come with a keyboard? (No)
I could go on, but really, like the product, no one cares.
The fact is, I know of companies that have tried G-Suite and moved back to Office (in reality, they never really left). I also know that in Australia, Woolworths went down the Google path - does anyone think that they don't also run office? Yeah, you're right, they have it EVERYWHERE.
G-Suite was necessary - it is the single reason why MS moved off on-prem only. They didn't want another iPhone/iPad moment.
So THANK YOU Google. Thank you very much.
But I will stick with Office.
Having lead an IT department for an Australian Heart Research organisation, I was there during our (all Australian MRIs) negotiations with MS.
Couple of points: Some "NFP" have positions such as 'GM of Commercialisation" and other NFPs include organisations such as football organisations (the AFL; NRL etc.) - so not all NFPs are equal.
The call to cut the NFP pricing was made years ago & it has been ongoing in MS (especially as the person at MS who made the call has left). It has improved from version 1, which was there is no NFP at all.
Another problem is a lot of medical research in the US has HUGE $$ behind them, unlike in Australia, where our scientists often rely on government funding, yet there is only an 11% success rate in submissions - so this change could have really hurt some places.
Pushing NFPs to the cloud is a very good thing. Most are already there, but those who are not, generally, have pretty average IT security/Backup/DR capabilities. It also forces their organisation to invest in IT.
So, it's a bit sh%t and there will be a transition cost for some, but in the long run, the NFPs will be in a better place.
So if you are anyone besides an organisation who is already running G-Suite, then why would you move off Slack or Teams? I don't see anything especially different.
Out of the four requirements: "application whitelisting, patching systems, using the latest application and operating system versions, and restricting admin privileges"
I am choosing 'patching systems' - as this is something that the IT team can do (mostly) without impacting users.
Sad fact is, a lot of IT leads don't like putting in strong security constraints, such as removal of local admin, due to the long, loud and constant complaints that ensue.
What's your guess?
I am trying to think of an event where a fully patched Windows 7/8/10 machine, running AV was successfully attacked - even with the user logging in as local admin.
Do both parties constantly update their software with security patches? Yes. In fact the last two years has seen Apple releasing the most number of security patches.
I wouldn't read too much into this.
But only because Steve is not around.
Have an outage? Haven't we all? It takes time, but everyone does get over it (just as Amazon).
Lose data? Umm, yeah, not so hot & not something people tend to forget.
Treat your paying customers as you are? Well that's just a whole new level of special... other cloud operators must be quietly schadenfreude.
How many times have you seen work colleagues bring their shiny new iPad to a meeting and diligently start taking notes (it was evernote, now it's often onenote) and sure enough, a couple of weeks later, the iPad is no longer around (it's usually in the possession of their kids).
Even Microsoft releasing office apps for everything imaginable hasn't changed this.
"Windows 7 is still more popular than 10"
It's more popular... yes, but the context is (missing) important: Are people buying new machines with 10 and then laboriously removing & installing 7?
Or are people not wanting to spend the $ on upgrading.
Another relevant context is that a computer lives in an environment, that includes legacy tech that cannot be upgraded - this can be anything from SAP to a Zeiss microscope - so you can be a fan of Windows 10, and continue to support/implement 7.
I am trying to think of a situation where a sysadmin or an organisation would want that?
...and they would be singing one of his hits a fair bit, right about now...
"Don't you know it's a cryin' shame
When you've got yourself to blame"
I think OneDrive/OneDrive For Business competes with Dropbox & others as a cloud file server - with other features, such as version history and web preview & editing online.
SharePoint is more a traditional CMS that also stores files. The search function will include your OneDrive account in the search results.
In terms of similar products, what is more confusing to me is the difference between SharePoint team sites; Office 365 groups and Microsoft Teams! They all do their things a bit different, but it's hard to explain to end users what they should know.
I don't like how consumer OneDrive comes with Win10, especially for people with lower technical skills (what is this? what do I do with it? why does it do this?).
But why would you want to not run OneDrive for Business? I have set up all of our users, with a folder in their ODFB account and change the location of 'My Documents' to that OD folder - so now all of my users have their files backed up.
Look at the cost of Apple anything.
Look at the cost of Microsoft branded devices.
No-one is arguing about their performance or their design - but lordy, look at the price tag!
So what does the competition do? Give up and aim at the emerging market? Or go after the same market with their own high spec & very pretty devices... and since the big boys are putting on a big price tag...
Re: Gartner - I just don't get why anyone other than software sales people even talk about them.
Why would someone want to synchronise their SD card to a cloud provider?
I get why they would want to upload from an SD to another location. And having files available offline is an equally obvious need.
But why would you want to combine the two? What am I missing?
If the technology is sound and you really can run SQL as fast as they say, with relatively very small amounts of resources (GPU) required, it could impact the business case to go to the cloud.
So if your organisation is moving/has moved to a cloud provider, then this is great news for your operational costs!... as long as they support it & GPU is still not widely available (across all locations).
So if AWS; Azure; Google or anyone else wants to be an early adopter, they are going to have to commit to all regions to have ready access to GPU - which would be great!
"Telstra, for its part, has complained to the department that Medicare data, a requirement for the project, was incomplete and unreliable"
However the market testing process should have allowed Telstra, et al, to pick up on the "quality" of data.
Whilst it makes sense for the government to outsource non core functions, you have to wonder if managing this data is, or should be, considered core the business of the Department of Health?
Further, if they had to outsource it, Telstra may have had the cash, but maintaining BAU systems like a database require stability (of the organisation) and I can't help but wonder if that view was taken when Health reviewed the tenderer's submissions (but I am working for an MRI, so I am biased!).
Question is: How much worse does it need to get before someone calls 'Time!'?
Isn't that quite literally shooting the messenger?
Are you sure?
O365 is what you want it to be. Nothing but a way to manage licenses; Exchange aaS; all the apps; online only; online and offline.
Having a small pipe to the internet will still cause you dramas with on prem Exchange/SharePoint/Skype.
You want to stay on prem? Knock yourself out! But the reasons (to go to the cloud) are usually commercial, not technical.
We just did the same - with our move to the cloud we only need one primary server and we went 2016. I have to say, it went in without a hitch - updates & all.
If you don't like the look of Windows, fair enough, but in terms of a painless installation & configuration, it certainly ticks the boxes.
"For example Office 2007 is perfectly adequate for 99.9% of users with Office, so it's already cost be about 10% of the cost of a subscription service to own those licenses for that time"
You are dreaming
"Work on a system of “least privilege” – where users have access only to the files they need" Should read: "Work on a system of “least privilege” – where users have USER access only to the DEVICE".
Remove local admin privileges to staff (be able to respond quickly to requests to install/update applications) and you go a long way in preventing malware from running.
It's not a silver bullet (apparently(?) some types of ransomware will still run on the local machine) - but it does put up a significant block.
"Ransomware hits Australian hospitals..."
OMG! An Aussie hospital has been hit with ransomware?!!? I want to know how & why!
"Rather, it appears, some users have been unable to log into the systems following the patch – perhaps because endpoints also need updates for compatibility."
So the headline is BS, or in the latest fad speak: the headline is fake news.
I expected better from The Register.
The services provided by AWS and Azure are very similar. They both offer trial periods; free VMs (teeny tiny) and documentation galore (on how to expand your footprint).
I am sure smarter people than me can also talk about the technical pros & cons, but I think my point has been made: They are two companies offering essentially the same services.
For some people Azure makes a lot of sense and for others, AWS is definitely the way to go.
Saying Azure is Bad and AWS is Good is plain biased and worse, it's not even based on experience (just reading other people's posts).
This article talks a lot about the data that can be obtained from the engine management systems and how you can play with spotify while you are driving - but none of that has anything to do with making cars autonomous.
You don't need to be a self qualified futurist to recognise that once autonomous cars are fairly standard & accepted, the "user experience" will change dramatically.
Car manufacturers will move away from power & cornering speeds and move towards keeping the (obsolete) 'human driver' entertained and alert, if they have to actually drive the car (I really cannot see this working). Don't believe me - just think back to when car showrooms had cars with all of their bonnets up, to show off the engine bay, and then take a look at the sales focus of car manufacturers today (it's about the lifestyle).
So Ford & Toyota don't want telemetry data sent to phones. Okay. So what?
I can remember back in 2003 when I was studying my post grad, one of the lectures was on how their commercial machines were connected to the internet to advise of maintenance requirements.
To be fair to Miele, this is one of the few use cases that makes sense in using IoT.
Having said that, there is no excuse for an inability to maintain their own software (insert famous Yoda to Luke quotation here).
We still have staff asking to install the consumer version of Skype, as they feel that they need it to connect to other Skype users.
If someone sends a contact request to a Skype user, it appears to take about 10 minutes to process - which is both weird & frustrating to users.
Teams is pretty good - it's very early days, but I like the fact that you can keep it really simple (by staying in the interface) or going much deeper, by accessing the SharePoint team site and making it much more complex (but I don't know why a 'Team' user would do that).
"ShelLuser" - You love Linux. We get it.
However this is not an option for the majority of the population. Think of a stereotypical atomic family. Do they have the time to purchase a new computer and install a new,, or replace the OS?
How does that even help, when the majority of data is being picked up from mobile devices (browsers on mobile devices are not the same as computer browsers)?
The article does give one good piece of advice: keep everything updated. No matter what type of device, OS or applications, keep applying the updates (and ignore those saying to stick with older OS versions).
"I tell them to go fuck themselves and find an alternative that isn't so idiotic" So I am guessing you're an admin - because that approach will preclude you from being responsible for more than system availability. Or you run a very small company and ... yeah, probably not
The fact is, this outage is for the free email service, not 365, so this issue is not related to enterprise.
Another fact is, after 4 years running 365, the only outage I have experienced was ultimately a network failure.
One last point: according to BetaNews, there are 24.9 million users of 365 and Google have 3 million G Suite users, so are all of them wrong?
Having experienced the joy of Oracle harassment to obtain licensing payment for 10 users, I could not imagine what a user of their cloud environment would go through.
So I would still recommend Azure & AWS, before other offerings.
"Microsoft's insistence on staying the course with their security roll-up strategy is edging toward abusive"
I don't get it? MS are being abusive by rolling up patches... because it... does what to you?
"Why could they not have released the February Roll-up without the one offending patch?"
And now you want the patch anyway?!?!
When I read your post, my eyes popped open!
I then did some searching and apparently the definitions that you download to MAC or Windows are the same, as they put both into the one file - which makes sense, as I guess it makes publishing updates easier.
I still don't like Macs though.
"Look at AWS's catalog of services as compared to Azure. It isn't even close. AWS has hundreds more services than Azure...."
Hint: do a search for the word "none" (as in, this service is not available) and count how many appear in Azure and then in AWS.
I am really embarrassed for you.
"Microsoft IaaS is not competitive. No one uses it unless they have a ton of Windows"
Who doesn't? Do you know of any organisation that doesn't run Windows/Win Server/AD/Exchange? What's the ratio of those that do?
"AWS and Google are miles ahead, technically..." Based on what? Functionality? No. Price? Not always.
"Both AWS and Google offer better performance, resiliency and price." Now, is that not a fanboi comment?
"The story of Microsoft is the same as ever - Windows and Office" So, you haven't seen Azure, have you?
Choose one of the big three; or choose a smaller local service. Stop making posts like this.
The difficulty I see is that even a minor breach can have 'any number of unknown consequences'.
So the executive can review a list of possible consequences and choose the least impact as the indicator on whether or not to report it - and it's all legit!
We experienced an attack and I can hand on heart say that not a 1 or a 0 left the organisation.
So that not a breach?
If I then choose to pay the criminals for the (possibly working) key, then no harm, no report?
It's not a case of privacy. It's a case of sovereignty.
"and we choose providers based on that" So, you are saying that you made an account in Hotmail, or Yahoo, or whatever, based on where their datacentre is held? Really?
"just like I voted against Hillary" - says it all, really.
But I got the feeling that the author was trying to create the perception of an impending conflict - rather than there actually being one.
One of the things I like about The Register is that is it happy to take the anti-hero stance, but the endless anti-MS, pro AWS and PRO PRO PRO Linux comments are sad, because they appear to be only based on emotion - not fact (I'll never install Windows version blah blah - they will blah blah).
This article does nothing to get readers to look at the entire IT industry/vendors, critically.
I am not a fan of Apple - but when choosing between Android, iOS & Windows Mobile (you didn't actually want to download an app, did you?), it's difficult to choose Android and the necessary security to maintain a fleet of devices. I don't have to do that with iPhones.
I still don't like iOS though - just saying.
Yes... sort of.
I head up IT at an Australian not for profit and we were also hit by a crypto locker. As you probably know, the malware accesses any location it can (local drive; file server; USB etc.) and then runs the encryption.
What was interesting is those with a synchronised OneDrive for Business & files stored in SharePoint (part of 365), were fine - nothing was touched.
So yes, moving to the cloud introduces it's own risks (and a bigger reliance on network & its redundancies), but in the scenario of some Einstein with local admin, running ransomware, moving to the cloud is a good solution.
I have two kids under 9.
You are having a cry about MS or other organisations proactively searching for illegal and sickening content - to report to the authorities.
Cry me a river, princess.
In Australia, we pay a premium for IT products & services and that sh&ts me - but MS is just one of EVERY company selling to Aus.
Having said that, we enjoy two local Azure/365 data centres; the first non US MS store and Aussie companies are not living in fear of a Microsoft audit - especially when compared to ORACLE customers.
So MS is by far from perfect, but Pip Marlow did make it better for us.
"Nothing Microsoft past Windows 7 under my roof."
...and I no longer trust W7 updates.
Break out your tin foil hats kids!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018