How M$ shakedown stupid corporations
-
doesnt change that it is still stupid. Also in the Windows scene, 2012 is current. 2008 is old.
-
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Also in the Windows scene, 2012 is current. 2008 is old.
Eh? 2012 might be LTSB, but it's definitely not current. That would be 2019.
-
@Dashrender said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Also in the Windows scene, 2012 is current. 2008 is old.
Eh? 2012 might be LTSB, but it's definitely not current. That would be 2019.
Says the Linux guy.... @Emad-R is right though. In the Windows world, 2012 is what most consider "current". Doesn't make it right, but that's the general thought process in MS ecosystems.
-
@RojoLoco said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Dashrender said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Also in the Windows scene, 2012 is current. 2008 is old.
Eh? 2012 might be LTSB, but it's definitely not current. That would be 2019.
Says the Linux guy.... @Emad-R is right though. In the Windows world, 2012 is what most consider "current". Doesn't make it right, but that's the general thought process in MS ecosystems.
But Microsoft themselves don't think this way. Just because a client of there's does, doesn't change the fact that 2012 is an old OS.
-
@DustinB3403 said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@RojoLoco said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Dashrender said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Also in the Windows scene, 2012 is current. 2008 is old.
Eh? 2012 might be LTSB, but it's definitely not current. That would be 2019.
Says the Linux guy.... @Emad-R is right though. In the Windows world, 2012 is what most consider "current". Doesn't make it right, but that's the general thought process in MS ecosystems.
But Microsoft themselves don't think this way. Just because a client of there's does, doesn't change the fact that 2012 is an old OS.
But that does not change the fact that businesses that run all Windows consider 2012 basically current.
-
@RojoLoco said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@DustinB3403 said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@RojoLoco said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Dashrender said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Also in the Windows scene, 2012 is current. 2008 is old.
Eh? 2012 might be LTSB, but it's definitely not current. That would be 2019.
Says the Linux guy.... @Emad-R is right though. In the Windows world, 2012 is what most consider "current". Doesn't make it right, but that's the general thought process in MS ecosystems.
But Microsoft themselves don't think this way. Just because a client of there's does, doesn't change the fact that 2012 is an old OS.
But that does not change the fact that businesses that run all Windows consider 2012 basically current.
Then I will again parrot @scottalanmiller - those aren't real businesses, but hobby businesses. No one who is running a real business considers 2012 current. What do they really honestly think that MS has not released a newer version in more than 7 years? (6 if the customer is actually on 2012R2)
-
@RojoLoco said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@DustinB3403 said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@RojoLoco said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Dashrender said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
@Emad-R said in How M$ shakedown stupid corporations:
Also in the Windows scene, 2012 is current. 2008 is old.
Eh? 2012 might be LTSB, but it's definitely not current. That would be 2019.
Says the Linux guy.... @Emad-R is right though. In the Windows world, 2012 is what most consider "current". Doesn't make it right, but that's the general thought process in MS ecosystems.
But Microsoft themselves don't think this way. Just because a client of there's does, doesn't change the fact that 2012 is an old OS.
But that does not change the fact that businesses that run all Windows consider 2012 basically current.
Let me guess - they also consider Windows 7 current as well? Even though TV ads have been blasting about Windows 8, 8.1 and 10 for better than 6 years?
-
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 shit -
@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.
-
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
-
@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.
