In the year 2000, I dumped all my personal windows machines, after having to reinstall the windows OS for the third time that week. replaced them all with Mac’s.
I had also noticed that windows security software it self behaved like the viruses I was trying protect against.
In biological terms, security software often behaves like an immune system generating a cytokine storm which kills the patient .
As a MacOS, iOS user who has suffered under MS-BigIT at all my jobs, this is Karma. Even if it was a 3rd party issue, the bottom line is having one company attempting to provide the whole experience has some merits.
Software is a complex system and the more recipes and cooks, the more likely the problems.
AI has fallen into the same trap as other media with a poor headline. This was not a Windows update. It was a Crowdstrike update affecting Windows. Businesses that do not use Crowdstrike are not affected. By crying Windows, you lead the headline reader to believe it is a Microsoft issue.
No surprise look at the Microsoft/Qualcomm AI intro recently, a F up as usual (the third Arm attempt) and that includes their Windows Arm emulation software again. Apple definitely isn't behind Microsoft when it comes to functionally at the software/hardware level. That being said Apple must get that M4 192-256 gig MacBook Pro out the door with at least 3 months of public sale time in 2024. The competition is currently floundering.
Microsoft has always been a second rate computer company the only thing saving them is the industry wide inertia in the tech/business/cad industry. But one day Microsoft will be disrupted like Intel who is currently grasping for air on the hardware chip side of things.
And get an Apple device as your computer/phone/tablet/watch/headset live a happy computing life on your own time.
Microsoft has always been a second rate computer company the only thing saving them is the industry wide inertia in the tech/business/Cad industry. But one day Microsoft will be disrupted like Intel who is currently grasping for air on the hardware chip side of things.
I’ve thought that for a few years, but not just about Microsoft. I compare it to the Big Three Automakers in the 1960s. They put out mediocre cars assuming whatever crap they made people would buy. Then out of left field appeared Honda, Toyota, and others that sold inexpensive, efficient, well made cars. The Big Three laughed, but soon there were more Hondas on the road in some places than Chevys.
I expect at some point to see some small companies appear with efficient, inexpensive, secure, systems that do what people need. Apple, Microsoft, Dell, HP, and all the rest are going to be caught flat footed. They will scramble to recover, and when it all shakes out the IT industry will be much healthier.
The headline makes it sound like a Windows Update caused the issue, when in fact, the issue was a 3rd party software company.
Could have been worded better. People are already blaming Windows...this headline doesn't help.
Agreed. Clickbait headline. But in all fairness, it's clearly still another illustrative example of how Windows is a mess, and too risky to be so widely deployed. The addiction has to stop.
Several IT friends of mine have posted that this was preventable if their respective companies had heeded their recommendations but none had done so in an effort to pursue cost savings.
In essence, it could have been less of a clusterf**k but the companies were cheap so here we are.
I'm surprised so many IT departments are allowing automatic updates on employees' computers at all, without those updates having been trialed first by IT. Is this because of a sense of urgency specific to security-related patches?
I'm surprised so many IT departments are allowing automatic updates on employees' computers at all, without those updates having been trialed first by IT. Is this because of a sense of urgency specific to security-related patches?
Funny you should mention that. I noticed this morning that the remote system I log into uses Crowdstrike security. I guess our iT department holds off on updates and doesn’t let them run automatically.
Surprised something like this would get past testing (assuming testing was done).
Most testing now is done by the developers themselves not by a independent test team, so the same wrong assumptions are made which leads to problems like this. Long gone are the days of a “Chinese Wall” approach…
Just shows how lackadaisical and arrogant business IT departments are with software update processes. Hopefully it’s not a big blow to the global economic recovery from inflation post Covid and Ukraine (i.e. income lost, insurance headaches, ensuing boost to business IT budgets.)
Maybe it's time for Apple to consider opening a business computing division. Maybe acquire JAMF to start with. I imagine all these companies that suffered would want to get away from monoculture systems and set up at least a back-up or parallel network. Just think how big that business could be for Apple. It'll double the company's size overnight.
In the year 2000, I dumped all my personal windows machines, after having to reinstall the windows OS for the third time that week. replaced them all with Mac’s.
I had also noticed that windows security software it self behaved like the viruses I was trying protect against.
In biological terms, security software often behaves like an immune system generating a cytokine storm which kills the patient .
IKR? When I first heard the problem described, my first thought was that it sounded just like an autoimmune disease.
In the year 2000, I dumped all my personal windows machines, after having to reinstall the windows OS for the third time that week. replaced them all with Mac’s.
I had also noticed that windows security software it self behaved like the viruses I was trying protect against.
In biological terms, security software often behaves like an immune system generating a cytokine storm which kills the patient .
When I was doing IT we also noticed that several of the AV and security packages on the market behaved very much like the malware we were trying to defend against.
Surprised something like this would get past testing (assuming testing was done).
Most testing now is done by the developers themselves not by a independent test team, so the same wrong assumptions are made which leads to problems like this. Long gone are the days of a “Chinese Wall” approach…
Yes, developers are running a greater number of tests but the tests they run are at finer granularity than the system tests that are run by the test team. If you don't have an independent test team to create and execute system level tests and create regression tests to gauge the relative stability of the software as it's being built - you are basically screwed. Imagine the person who is responsible for the braking system in an automobile having final sign-off on whether the entire vehicle is ready to deliver to customers. Having every individual contributor assert that their piece is "good-to-go" doesn't answer the question of whether the system is tested to a level that provides a quantitative measure and determination that the software system is ready to ship. You have to do system testing.
On the Microsoft side of this thread, I don't know why so many folks are pouncing on Microsoft for this particular issue. Microsoft provides a vehicle for helping other software vendors deploy their software, but Microsoft only has so much visibility into what these other vendors are putting out there. I do believe that Microsoft should be doing a series of tests to ensure that the update package does not destabilize the target system after installation. But if the destabilization occurs only after the misbehaving application is executed or loaded on the target system there is only so much Microsoft or Apple can do. I cannot imagine that either Microsoft or Apple fires up every application, service, extension, library, etc., that is part of the update package to ensure nothing is compromised.
I've worked very closely with Microsoft over 25+ years as a partner and have friends that work at Microsoft. I've worked on joint projects and industry initiatives with Microsoft. Based on my personal experience the quality of their program managers, developers, engineers, architects, vertical application specialists, etc., is nothing short of outstanding. At one point in the early 2000's they started hoovering up some of the most respected and influential developers and architects in the software development community at large. They are not lacking in talent in any way. Microsoft has a wealth of talent, but it all comes down to how they use that talent.
If I had to point a finger at Microsoft's achilles heel I would say that it's the massive scope, size, and volume of their code base and the need to drag along a huge anchor of legacy functionality and support for decades. Then there's the massive third party hardware and software community. If Microsoft only had their own software, their own hardware, far less legacy baggage, and an ecosystem that Microsoft is in total control of, they would be sitting pretty. Of course what we call "legacy baggage" has a huge impact of mass numbers of real people and businesses and Microsoft is not going to abandon them. They'd love to transition them to their latest and greatest stuff but that's a huge effort that will take time. I think that when they finally came around to focusing on security and then stability, as evidenced by Windows 10, they were able to glue together some major pieces of what once was a flimsy house of cards.
I have a tremendous respect for what Microsoft has been able to accomplish given the size and scope of what they've taken on. It's hard for me to directly compare Apple and Microsoft because I believe the two companies are on vastly different missions and each one is doing what they are best equipped to do. There's a good reason why they both keep themselves near the very top of the mountain when it comes to market capitalization. Trying to force a zero-sum-game comparison between these two companies is rather silly in my opinion. They are both crushing it regardless of who happens to be on top on one day or another.
Comments
In biological terms, security software often behaves like an immune system generating a cytokine storm which kills the patient .
Software is a complex system and the more recipes and cooks, the more likely the problems.
Microsoft has always been a second rate computer company the only thing saving them is the industry wide inertia in the tech/business/cad industry. But one day Microsoft will be disrupted like Intel who is currently grasping for air on the hardware chip side of things.
And get an Apple device as your computer/phone/tablet/watch/headset live a happy computing life on your own time.
I expect at some point to see some small companies appear with efficient, inexpensive, secure, systems that do what people need. Apple, Microsoft, Dell, HP, and all the rest are going to be caught flat footed. They will scramble to recover, and when it all shakes out the IT industry will be much healthier.
Agreed. Clickbait headline. But in all fairness, it's clearly still another illustrative example of how Windows is a mess, and too risky to be so widely deployed. The addiction has to stop.
I'm surprised so many IT departments are allowing automatic updates on employees' computers at all, without those updates having been trialed first by IT. Is this because of a sense of urgency specific to security-related patches?
I log into uses Crowdstrike security. I guess our iT department holds off on updates and doesn’t let them run automatically.
When I first heard the problem described, my first thought was that it sounded just like an autoimmune disease.
Apple got rid of kexts…
On the Microsoft side of this thread, I don't know why so many folks are pouncing on Microsoft for this particular issue. Microsoft provides a vehicle for helping other software vendors deploy their software, but Microsoft only has so much visibility into what these other vendors are putting out there. I do believe that Microsoft should be doing a series of tests to ensure that the update package does not destabilize the target system after installation. But if the destabilization occurs only after the misbehaving application is executed or loaded on the target system there is only so much Microsoft or Apple can do. I cannot imagine that either Microsoft or Apple fires up every application, service, extension, library, etc., that is part of the update package to ensure nothing is compromised.
I've worked very closely with Microsoft over 25+ years as a partner and have friends that work at Microsoft. I've worked on joint projects and industry initiatives with Microsoft. Based on my personal experience the quality of their program managers, developers, engineers, architects, vertical application specialists, etc., is nothing short of outstanding. At one point in the early 2000's they started hoovering up some of the most respected and influential developers and architects in the software development community at large. They are not lacking in talent in any way. Microsoft has a wealth of talent, but it all comes down to how they use that talent.
If I had to point a finger at Microsoft's achilles heel I would say that it's the massive scope, size, and volume of their code base and the need to drag along a huge anchor of legacy functionality and support for decades. Then there's the massive third party hardware and software community. If Microsoft only had their own software, their own hardware, far less legacy baggage, and an ecosystem that Microsoft is in total control of, they would be sitting pretty. Of course what we call "legacy baggage" has a huge impact of mass numbers of real people and businesses and Microsoft is not going to abandon them. They'd love to transition them to their latest and greatest stuff but that's a huge effort that will take time. I think that when they finally came around to focusing on security and then stability, as evidenced by Windows 10, they were able to glue together some major pieces of what once was a flimsy house of cards.
I have a tremendous respect for what Microsoft has been able to accomplish given the size and scope of what they've taken on. It's hard for me to directly compare Apple and Microsoft because I believe the two companies are on vastly different missions and each one is doing what they are best equipped to do. There's a good reason why they both keep themselves near the very top of the mountain when it comes to market capitalization. Trying to force a zero-sum-game comparison between these two companies is rather silly in my opinion. They are both crushing it regardless of who happens to be on top on one day or another.