←back to thread

433 points zdw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
stackskipton ◴[] No.45660335[source]
As usual with all these types of posts, people go "HA HA, MICRO$OFT SUCKS" without understanding business practices that keep them afloat.

Don't use Exchange? Cool, what should we use instead? Does it support 15 people all the way up to 150000 people? I used to run Exchange cluster for 70k people, is there other mail software out there complete with non-shared disk redundancy? Where the users connect to single endpoint and software figures it out from there?

Sharepoint with another 2 RCEs. Not shocked, the software is terrible. However, it's only software that will stand up under load and let us shard it easily. All open-source software is one of those, runs fine in Homelab, likely falls down under load. Few Open Source Developers want to work on this stuff which I get because it's tedious work interfacing with computer illiterate end users. I'd rather chug sewage then do this work for free.

Finally, it's somewhat backwards compatible. Most businesses are filled with ancient software that no one has worked on in 20 years. That Excel document with Macros from 1997. With some registry changes degrading security posture, still works. I doubt you will find Office software with level of backwards compatibility unless they are using Microsoft Office level of compatibility.

Microsoft has real gordian knot here and few solutions besides "Backwards compatibility is OVER. Upgrade to modern or GTFO". Meanwhile, I get hit up by $ThreeJobsAgo over some Exchange Web Services solution I slapped together for them in Python they wanted me to upgrade to GraphAPI since Microsoft turned off Exchange Web Services in Office365.

replies(13): >>45660418 #>>45660587 #>>45660597 #>>45660667 #>>45660671 #>>45660681 #>>45660723 #>>45660777 #>>45660784 #>>45661246 #>>45663047 #>>45663124 #>>45665208 #
necovek ◴[] No.45660667[source]
I see you build a case for traditional MS product in Exchange, yet this issue is about Sharepoint.

Just like with Windows, Microsoft has built a moat with Exchange, but the question is why do all the companies buy into their full ecosystem, especially for anything relating to web technologies (you even bring up Exchange Web Services), because this they do really badly, and Sharepoint seems to be the worst.

However, I am certain there are big Postfix/Dovecot installations scaling easily to 150k people, but we probably wouldn't know about them. Eg. here a couple of accounts of people doing that: https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxadmin/comments/32fq67/how_woul...

replies(6): >>45660796 #>>45660845 #>>45660876 #>>45660981 #>>45663661 #>>45665175 #
MisterTea ◴[] No.45660981[source]
> but the question is why do all the companies buy into their full ecosystem,

Old manager I had one told me: "I wish Microsoft made all the software in the world because it works so well together!" He was the guy who bought our company a one-way ticket to O365. He was also woefully tech ignorant and could barley drive software outside of office programs.

replies(1): >>45663255 #
casey2 ◴[] No.45663255{3}[source]
Yup, proves the old adage that you never let the tech fluent make tooling decisions for normal people. Nothing would kill a large orgs momentum faster than half their employees stuck reading man pages for trivial tasks. Microsoft is a good black and white, you can do this or you can't. Which works better organizationally than the "I bet I could hack this together in a few weeks" and have everyone wait around so one "10x dev" can feel like a special snowflake
replies(1): >>45671940 #
1. necovek ◴[] No.45671940{4}[source]
You are ignoring the fact that people are mostly complaining about Microsoft saying their software will do something, and then it not really working or falling apart (like with security incidents).