Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Obsolesce said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Obsolesce said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
If they already have and use Excel, then what's the issue? Obviously it not being cross-platform isn't an issue there.
The issue comes from the desire to upgrade to newer versions. Microsoft, while they offer stand-alone installations of Office 2019, now require yearly upgrades if you need those new features.
Many organizations simply don't or won't pay for upgrades year after year for something that has traditionally been supported for several years at a time.
At the same time, they won't pay for O365 to just get access to Microsoft Office (ueo to the total monthly cost increase) from $0 to $12-22 per user.
Then they shouldn't have went down that path to begin with, never made the decision to go with software or platforms and services and business practices that require something that costs money.
Software company wanting to make money from subscription based services is nothing new. If they don't like it they can spend way more resources to move everything and everyone to something else.
Edit: Quoted for posterity.
@Obsolesce you really need to reconsider before you start smashing your keyboard. These decisions aren't mine they are simply decisions that were made who knows how long ago that I have to deal with.
Your inability to understand that past decisions affects the future is very telling.
I'm just saying it's not Microsoft's / MS Office's fault ya'll picked the wrong software for your business requirements.
-
@Obsolesce said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
I'm just saying it's not Microsoft's / MS Office's fault ya'll picked the wrong software for your business requirements.
You're assuming that there was a plethora of choices in cases like this. For a very long time there was 1 "choice" Microsoft Office.
Hiring a developer isn't an option for a start-up plumbing business or general contractor (examples) to fulfill their needs. It's not as if LibreOffice or OpenOffice or whatever products were well known or even existed at the time these decisions were made.
The argument you're making is "Well you shouldn't have picked QuickBooks" as if other options are well known enough to work for a businesses use case.
-
And the final part to the above is that, businesses like people change. Processes change, software changes, income changes, decision makers change.
These are all things that need to be accounted for before spouting off about how bad a decision is or was and what you'd do in your perfect circle of hell that is @Obsolesce.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
And the final part to the above is that, businesses like people change. Processes change, software changes, income changes, decision makers change.
These are all things that need to be accounted for before spouting off about how bad a decision is or was and what you'd do in your perfect circle of hell that is @Obsolesce.
Then it's obvious. If everything is changing around the business, why can't the business change? That's just how it works. Business that fail to change as the world around them changes, end up failing or hurting in some way.
-
@Obsolesce said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
And the final part to the above is that, businesses like people change. Processes change, software changes, income changes, decision makers change.
These are all things that need to be accounted for before spouting off about how bad a decision is or was and what you'd do in your perfect circle of hell that is @Obsolesce.
Then it's obvious. If everything is changing around the business, why can't the business change? That's just how it works. Business that fail to change as the world around them changes, end up failing or hurting in some way.
Change is not what you're discussing, you've clearly stated that "ya'll picked the wrong software for your business requirements."
The decisions very well could've have been the correct option at the time.
You're now attempting to change tracks when you've made your bed, so now it's time to sleep in it and realize that you've been spouting nonsense about how any business has obviously made the wrong decisions if they don't have the tools they need today.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Obsolesce said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
And the final part to the above is that, businesses like people change. Processes change, software changes, income changes, decision makers change.
These are all things that need to be accounted for before spouting off about how bad a decision is or was and what you'd do in your perfect circle of hell that is @Obsolesce.
Then it's obvious. If everything is changing around the business, why can't the business change? That's just how it works. Business that fail to change as the world around them changes, end up failing or hurting in some way.
Change is not what you're discussing, you've clearly stated that "ya'll picked the wrong software for your business requirements."
The decisions very well could've have been the correct option at the time.
You're now attempting to change tracks when you've made your bed, so now it's time to sleep in it and realize that you've been spouting nonsense about how any business has obviously made the wrong decisions if they don't have the tools they need today.
And what, now too shitty of a business to continuously improve and evolve with the rest of the world?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Obsolesce said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
If they already have and use Excel, then what's the issue? Obviously it not being cross-platform isn't an issue there.
The issue comes from the desire to upgrade to newer versions. Microsoft, while they offer stand-alone installations of Office 2019, now require yearly upgrades if you need those new features.
Many organizations simply don't or won't pay for upgrades year after year for something that has traditionally been supported for several years at a time.
At the same time, they won't pay for O365 to just get access to Microsoft Office (ueo to the total monthly cost increase) from $0 to $12-22 per user.
They rarely got new features in the past without buying a new version... so I don't see the problem. They continue to pay their one time huge fee for locally installed office on one computer and be done with it.
If they want new features, they'll have to buy it again and again, or just subscribe. -
The point of bring in someone like myself, @JaredBusch or anyone else is to help facilitate those changes to a new system or process.
Again you're attempting to change tracks on what was once a decision made must be the wrong decision if today you need something else.
How many businesses start with something like QuickBooks and move to something else? Was QuickBooks the wrong decision at the time? Not necessarily.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
You're assuming that there was a plethora of choices in cases like this. For a very long time there was 1 "choice" Microsoft Office.
That has almost never been true. There have been many office packages out there since the 80's.. sure many have come and gone, but there were always choices.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Obsolesce said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
If they already have and use Excel, then what's the issue? Obviously it not being cross-platform isn't an issue there.
The issue comes from the desire to upgrade to newer versions. Microsoft, while they offer stand-alone installations of Office 2019, now require yearly upgrades if you need those new features.
Many organizations simply don't or won't pay for upgrades year after year for something that has traditionally been supported for several years at a time.
At the same time, they won't pay for O365 to just get access to Microsoft Office (ueo to the total monthly cost increase) from $0 to $12-22 per user.
They rarely got new features in the past without buying a new version... so I don't see the problem. They continue to pay their one time huge fee for locally installed office on one computer and be done with it.
If they want new features, they'll have to buy it again and again, or just subscribe.Yeah that's not the issue that I was describing. What I was trying to point to is how businesses made a choice to use a specific product (in this case Microsoft Office Excel) and are now having to deal with the decision process of the past and are making tough choices because of the past.
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
You're assuming that there was a plethora of choices in cases like this. For a very long time there was 1 "choice" Microsoft Office.
That has almost never been true. There have been many office packages out there since the 80's.. sure many have come and gone, but there were always choices.
Sure there have also been a ton of different accounting packages, and payroll packages etc etc. Doesn't mean anyone or a business would chose something that is less than ideal or doesn't meet the businesses needs effectively.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
You're assuming that there was a plethora of choices in cases like this. For a very long time there was 1 "choice" Microsoft Office.
That's simply not true. LibreOffice, OpenOffice, WPS Office, Google Docs, Lotus SmartSuite, Lotus Symphony, IBM Works, Calligra, WordPerfect Office, etc. Many had to have existed around the time you're speaking of or even MS Office wouldn't have existed.
Times change, the business needs to adapt. That means adapting mindset like using proper RBAC. Them not wanting to pay for the yearly fee is inconsequential. That's the cost, end of story. If they don't like it, they're stuck with their decision or they migrate to something else. There's not much to argue.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
The argument you're making is "Well you shouldn't have picked QuickBooks" as if other options are well known enough to work for a businesses use case.
Well - this is the argument that Scott makes all the time - you as the business owner of said plumbing shop are 100% responsible for FINDING those solutions.. and if you're not willing to spend the time yourself doing it - then you should hire professionals to do it.. sad part about that, many/most places would likely just push you down the given path. Finding that one shop that actually considers all the aspects that we sometimes consider more often today is difficult at best.
And that said - just because you made a decision in the past, doesn't mean you need/should stay on that decision forever.
I know I'm trying to move us to O365 completely, files, online apps, etc.. for some, they will go kicking and screaming, for others, they will like the new found freedom/flexibility compared to onsite file shares.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
tough choices because of the past
It's not a tough choice. You either want the updates and features or not. If you do, you pay for a subscription or you use an open source version that gets constant updates. It's not tough at all. They might not like it, but it's not tough.
-
@stacksofplates said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
tough choices because of the past
It's not a tough choice. You either want the updates and features or not. If you do, you pay for a subscription or you use an open source version that gets constant updates. It's not tough at all. They might not like it, but it's not tough.
You may not see it as a tough choice, but it is rarely an easy one.
Changing platforms from Microsoft Excel to LibreOffice for example might include weeks or months of restructuring and rebuilding to use the different platform.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Obsolesce said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
If they already have and use Excel, then what's the issue? Obviously it not being cross-platform isn't an issue there.
The issue comes from the desire to upgrade to newer versions. Microsoft, while they offer stand-alone installations of Office 2019, now require yearly upgrades if you need those new features.
Many organizations simply don't or won't pay for upgrades year after year for something that has traditionally been supported for several years at a time.
At the same time, they won't pay for O365 to just get access to Microsoft Office (ueo to the total monthly cost increase) from $0 to $12-22 per user.
They rarely got new features in the past without buying a new version... so I don't see the problem. They continue to pay their one time huge fee for locally installed office on one computer and be done with it.
If they want new features, they'll have to buy it again and again, or just subscribe.Yeah that's not the issue that I was describing. What I was trying to point to is how businesses made a choice to use a specific product (in this case Microsoft Office Excel) and are now having to deal with the decision process of the past and are making tough choices because of the past.
Sadly - I rarely see them willing to "make" those tough choices.. they push back and say no - we're not changing... getting themselves stuck.
I have a client on a 22+ year old AS400 because of this. An AS400 that died a month ago, they were super lucky that their support vendor for that device had a spare old junker on the shelf just for such an occasion, and that they could restore their backups to it ( or move the drives, I'm not sure which).I need to ask them how much the spend on that? Money that should have been spent moving to a new platform earlier... of course the push back is - well time value of money, I didn't spend anything for 15 years on this system - we've saved a bundle... I don't really know how to combat that argument yet.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@stacksofplates said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
tough choices because of the past
It's not a tough choice. You either want the updates and features or not. If you do, you pay for a subscription or you use an open source version that gets constant updates. It's not tough at all. They might not like it, but it's not tough.
You may not see it as a tough choice, but it is rarely an easy one.
Changing platforms from Microsoft Excel to LibreOffice for example might include weeks or months of restructuring and rebuilding to use the different platform.
Right, so it makes fiscal sense to pay for O365. It's not tough.
-
@stacksofplates said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
You're assuming that there was a plethora of choices in cases like this. For a very long time there was 1 "choice" Microsoft Office.
That's simply not true. LibreOffice, OpenOffice, WPS Office, Google Docs, Lotus SmartSuite, Lotus Symphony, IBM Works, Calligra, WordPerfect Office, etc. Many had to have existed around the time you're speaking of or even MS Office wouldn't have existed.
Times change, the business needs to adapt. That means adapting mindset like using proper RBAC. Them not wanting to pay for the yearly fee is inconsequential. That's the cost, end of story. If they don't like it, they're stuck with their decision or they migrate to something else. There's not much to argue.
This seems to be a continual problem of SMB - they just don't want to spend on their IT to move things forward, keep them current, specially if they aren't an IT based company...
-
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Dashrender said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@Obsolesce said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
If they already have and use Excel, then what's the issue? Obviously it not being cross-platform isn't an issue there.
The issue comes from the desire to upgrade to newer versions. Microsoft, while they offer stand-alone installations of Office 2019, now require yearly upgrades if you need those new features.
Many organizations simply don't or won't pay for upgrades year after year for something that has traditionally been supported for several years at a time.
At the same time, they won't pay for O365 to just get access to Microsoft Office (ueo to the total monthly cost increase) from $0 to $12-22 per user.
They rarely got new features in the past without buying a new version... so I don't see the problem. They continue to pay their one time huge fee for locally installed office on one computer and be done with it.
If they want new features, they'll have to buy it again and again, or just subscribe.Yeah that's not the issue that I was describing. What I was trying to point to is how businesses made a choice to use a specific product (in this case Microsoft Office Excel) and are now having to deal with the decision process of the past and are making tough choices because of the past.
Sadly - I rarely see them willing to "make" those tough choices.. they push back and say no - we're not changing... getting themselves stuck.
I have a client on a 22+ year old AS400 because of this. An AS400 that died a month ago, they were super lucky that their support vendor for that device had a spare old junker on the shelf just for such an occasion, and that they could restore their backups to it ( or move the drives, I'm not sure which).I need to ask them how much the spend on that? Money that should have been spent moving to a new platform earlier... of course the push back is - well time value of money, I didn't spend anything for 15 years on this system - we've saved a bundle... I don't really know how to combat that argument yet.
Exactly, I have a customer with an AS400 as well that they use to this day because "it still works and I know it and I haven't had to spend a penny on it".
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@stacksofplates said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
tough choices because of the past
It's not a tough choice. You either want the updates and features or not. If you do, you pay for a subscription or you use an open source version that gets constant updates. It's not tough at all. They might not like it, but it's not tough.
You may not see it as a tough choice, but it is rarely an easy one.
Changing platforms from Microsoft Excel to LibreOffice for example might include weeks or months of restructuring and rebuilding to use the different platform.
I don't see it being that hard - other than guessing the costs of that migration... weight the cost of the migration (and assumed continuation of the project) against the subscription cost of something like O365.
it's just math.. fuzzy math, sure, but still math.
