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:
@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.Well the math isn't just math, its emotion that you have to try and take out of the equation. Then you can have a costs discussion.
@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:
@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".
and what happens when it does eventually die? No seriously - everything does eventually.. so what then? when there is no backup hardware, no personal who knows how to recover it, etc, etc, etc...
I know - I'm preaching to the choir.Yup... I had the very same question with the person who is attempting to retire.. . . he said "Well I have enough time left to try and sort this out". . .
Does that imply that he's actually going to look into a new platform and migrate?
-
@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.
Yeah, emotional reactions like this are tough to deal with. In this case I'd point out that they're paying more just to power that 22+ year old AS400 than the migration cost. Doesn't IBM still have a line of servers that can run AS400 workloads? I thought so, but it's been so long since I looked into it.
-
@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:
Well the math isn't just math, its emotion that you have to try and take out of the equation. Then you can have a costs discussion.
Again, this is their fault. If taxes go up, do they get emotional and try to fight it? No they pass the cost on to the customer like every other business. Same in this scenario. If you have to subscribe now and it costs more, the costs get passed on. It's no one's fault but their own.
yeah, the emotion part is what needs to be pulled out..
I'm definitely not innocent of the emotional part.. so I get it.. but really, when you show the math.. that should be all that matters to the business.
And as Stacks said - if your costs go up, then your sales price have to increase generally as well... just the way things work.
-
@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:
@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.Well the math isn't just math, its emotion that you have to try and take out of the equation. Then you can have a costs discussion.
@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:
@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".
and what happens when it does eventually die? No seriously - everything does eventually.. so what then? when there is no backup hardware, no personal who knows how to recover it, etc, etc, etc...
I know - I'm preaching to the choir.Yup... I had the very same question with the person who is attempting to retire.. . . he said "Well I have enough time left to try and sort this out". . .
Does that imply that he's actually going to look into a new platform and migrate?
Don't honestly know, I found out that have an ISP of their own that they are already engaged with. This was several months ago.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
The point of bring in someone like myself, @JaredBusch
-
@IRJ 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:
The point of bring in someone like myself, @JaredBusch
If you wanted to do that properly you should've added the
Jackass...
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@IRJ 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:
The point of bring in someone like myself, @JaredBusch
If you wanted to do that properly you should've added the
Jackass...
I can ship you a Snickers if you need it, Betty White.
-
@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:
@IRJ 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:
The point of bring in someone like myself, @JaredBusch
If you wanted to do that properly you should've added the
Jackass...
I can ship you a Snickers if you need it, Betty White.
If I were Betty White I would've whipped your butt by now. She's a bad ass.
-
-
-
-
-
-
An entire risk that exists only for closed source.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
An entire risk that exists only for closed source.
I hope on of the products is Microsoft Teams so they can fix the glaring functional issues with it...
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
An entire risk that exists only for closed source.
I hope on of the products is Microsoft Teams so they can fix the glaring functional issues with it...
Is Teams really a product though? I think of it more as a service... I mean I know they have clients for desktop and mobile... but the web version definitely feels more like a service.
-
@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:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
An entire risk that exists only for closed source.
I hope on of the products is Microsoft Teams so they can fix the glaring functional issues with it...
Is Teams really a product though? I think of it more as a service... I mean I know they have clients for desktop and mobile... but the web version definitely feels more like a service.
I did a 2-day conference over Teams last week. It actually went very well.
-
@Obsolesce 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:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Open Source Really So Much More Secure By Nature:
An entire risk that exists only for closed source.
I hope on of the products is Microsoft Teams so they can fix the glaring functional issues with it...
Is Teams really a product though? I think of it more as a service... I mean I know they have clients for desktop and mobile... but the web version definitely feels more like a service.
I did a 2-day conference over Teams last week. It actually went very well.
It has improved a lot. It's still trails other solutions, but what from MS doesn't. It's at least starting to catch up with the level of behind that most of the rest of the MS ecosystem is.
