Posts by moonpunk 35 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jul 2013
But that's not the same as stating Fujitus killed people now is it Sherrie? And, for the avoidance of doubt, there is no actual evidence that would stand up in a court of law which unequivocally states that their suicide is as a direct result of Fujitsu's actions.
Like I said - you need to get some perspective, this is like talking to toddlers!!
Just to be absolutely clear:
Fujitsu did not kill anyone.
Fujitsu did not imprison anyone.
Fujitsu has not refused to pay compensation.
Let me be clear — I am by no means a defender of Fujitsu. Like most people, I find their role in this entire scandal to be deeply troubling, and I believe their actions warrant serious scrutiny and accountability. But we must not allow the facts to be distorted, even in our outrage.
Fujitsu does not have the legal authority to imprison anyone — that is the domain of the courts. Individuals were wrongly prosecuted and convicted based on evidence supplied by Fujitsu, but that is not the same as Fujitsu directly imprisoning them.
As for compensation, Fujitsu has not refused to pay; rather, they have not yet been legally compelled to do so — a distinction that matters. Personally, I believe they should be held liable and made to contribute meaningfully to the redress of this injustice, but at present, they are not in breach of any such legal order.
And finally, the claim that Fujitsu “killed people” is not only false, it is potentially libellous. There is no evidence that Fujitsu has caused anyone’s death in a way that would meet legal or journalistic standards for such a claim.
If we want accountability, it must be grounded in fact. Hyperbole may feel cathartic, but it undermines serious efforts toward justice.
If I was you ChoHag I'd get myself a decent lawyer, just in case Fujitsu's legal team are avid The Register readers and fancy a field day out!!
GDS have been trying to standardise IT acrross central and local government for donkeys years! The problem is that each Government department wants to be the trailblazer - the leading light, nobody wants to be a follower.
It's a bit like the whole Shared Services push, back in the late 2000's in Local Government - everyone wanted to provide a shared service, but nobody wanted to consume a shared service!
And this is all BEFORE you add polictics into the mix - no Conservative run Local Authority wants to be dictated to by a Labour Government, and the Local Government Act reliably gives them the autonomy not to have to follow what Central Government tells them (to a large degree).
In some ways I would support a dictatorship - each of the authorities responsible for Social Care (Adult and Childrens) are buying software solutions from a handful of vendors. All with different database schemas, none of them able to talk to each other, none of them (easily) able to share information wtih other agencies - it's why we have issues such as Baby P, because information isn't in a single place, isn't easily share'able, and instead relies on the largely diligent work of human beings working for each ot the agencies (police, health, social care, etc) - who understandably make mistakes.
Each of those software vendors actively encourage those Local Authorities to customise their solutions to fit antiquated and overly complex processes unique to them, and why wouldn't they? It's how they make their money - on custom implementations via Professional Service fees, and they get a bite of that same cherry every time theres an upgrade. And to ensure that Gravy Train the vendors insist you can't be more than two versions behind in order to maintain support, and then release three versions a year! And who would let their system, responsible for vulnerable children be out of support?
The irony is none of these authorities are doing anything different to the rest - they're all doing the same things (housing, highways, council tax revenue collection, waste, recycling, social care, payroll, etc) - you could standardise the process and mandate it across the country. It would require legislation change of the Local Government Act, but I reckon it would stop idiots that clearly know nothing about technology, can't run a project, and have no commercial nouse, from p1ssing away tax payers money!
It just beggars belief. Council after Council keep following the same path of implementing Oracle and then losing their shirt - project budgets go from singular millions to tens of millions. Implementation dates get pushed back years! When are they ever going to learn?
Best of it is each of these Council's do EXACTLY the same thing - Adult Social Care, Childrens Social Care, Collecting Council Tax Revenue, Refuse Collection, Payroll, Housing, Pension administration, planning, highways.
I'm all for freedom of choice, capitalism, and the free market economy - but even I'm beginning to think they should be mandated to use one system. Who knows if they all used the same system perhaps they could share information more easily between councils when people move?
It seems to me that the vendors pushing Oracle solutions are encouraging bespoke custom processes unique to each authority so that they can burn through oodles of cash on bespoke customisations and ensure a steady revenue stream into the future knowing that standard upgrades will need to be carefully (and very expensively) implemented so as not to break the custom processes.
I guess if you're in that business it's a nice healthy Gravy Train
I know of a Police Authority in the UK who seriously contemplated paying a ransom after finding their data partially encrypted (they managed to stop the rest of the data being encrypted) - they had no network segmentation, and found their backup systems (which were not offline - were only online and connected to their live production network) were also affected! I know this because I was a consultant working on site and helping to manage the fallout. In one meeting the then Head of IT had said he spoke with senior management about the very real possibility of paying the ransom in order to get the keys!! Fortunately their bacon was saved when one of the more junior member so fhte team announced they had a lot of the data in an offline data warehouse he had been working on!
It's rare that a VC would invest in an established business - not unheard of, but invariably quite rare. They want to invest in startups, get in on the ground where the opportunity to maximise return on their investment is at its highest. At this point they're interested in costs - and making a big capital investment on infrastructure would undoubtedly be frowned upon, they'd much rather see initial costs start low and ramp up on a PAYG basis.
Surpise surprise - the sharp practices of companies such as CISCO to initially allow license transfer/extension/discount for SDN appliances in the cloud have ensured they retain their customer and future-proof their cash-cow (very similar to what Microsoft are being investigated for with their License Portability for Windows Server and SQL Server).
I guess it takes a brave organisation to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' and break their reliance on the likes of CISCO, and for every one of those 'brave' organisations, there are thousands of others not quite so brave!
This is a practice where Microsoft are very long in the tooth. It's not that they offer "discounts" for those with on-premise licenses to simply port them over to Azure (I'm thinking SQL Server, Windows Server, etc.), it's that they don't offer the same mobility/pricing to other cloud vendors such as GCP and AWS - thereby ensuring the success of Azure.
Exactly! I'm a Eufy doorbell user and if I'm honest I don't really have an issue with them using cloud in order to provide the functionality that I require to enable me to get a notification that someone has rang my doorbell, and in fact one of the reasons I chose Eufy (over Ring for example) is the fact that I can store locally and don't have to pay a monthly cloud subscription (again unlike Ring). But for those people that chose on ethical grounds that their data would NOT be sent to the Cloud were lied to - that's what Eufy need to address!
The problem is that company's like Probase have most likely always written shoddy software like this, without even so much as a nod to 'secure by design' principles. But the difference is they've got away with it in the past (albeit by the skin of their teeth) because they've hosted it in their own (or co-located) datacentres and on their own managed tin, and the only bit of security that's been saving their bacon has been some Firewall at the edge.
Now, in the cloud they continue to write shoddy software with no regard to security and it' all laid bare. This is the problem when companies go looking for SaaS line of business applications, they often seem only interested in whether the application meets their functionality requirements, and only demand auditable security once they've had their pants pulled down like this!
I actually don't think the point the plaintiffs make is valid at all. Apple would argue (in my view successfully) that they're not simply reselling other cloud providers storage, not least because of the 'value add' that Apple are providing by enabling the seamless functionality of providing backup and storage through their iOS operating system - hence the price premium compared to natively choosing AWS, Google, or Azure storage. Furthermore (as others have pointed out) the fact that Apple has chosen to outsource *some* elements of their iCloud solution is in no way a breach of their contractual obligations to their users, they certainly do not state that they are providing the entire solution themselves (hardware, servers, OS, electricity, datacenter, etc.). Basic common sense will undoubtedly see this lawsuit fail.
"...Microsoft overtook AWS in IAAS in early 2017"
Factually incorrect - there you go!
Even with their SaaS and PaaS offerings, Microsoft only just tip the balance on quarterly revenue. AWS is bigger by customer numbers AND revenue when it comes to IaaS - no question!
You made it up - your statistics are wrong and you are FACTUALLY INCORRECT!
What on earth are you talking about? The only reason Microsoft overtook Amazon for Cloud Revenue was because they started including O365 (and now Dynamics 365) revenues in their collective revenue figures - it's a point that is constantly on everyone's lips on the Microsoft quarterly revenue calls, but gets shut down every time (a bit like Apple never actually declaring how well (or not) their Apple Watch sales are - they just don't separate it out).
Last quarter Microsoft had 500m active Azure subscriptions, AWS had almost 1.7bn!
Don't get me wrong I like Azure, and O365 (they have over 100m business O365 subscribers and 57m personal O365 subscribers). But if you're going to quote statistics and "facts" at least check them first before just arbitrarily making them up - you could have just used Google after all (or maybe even Bing)!
...that actually likes Windows 10?
Works great for me. As does Office 365 (Teams, OneDrive, Skype 4 Business, and all of the usual Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook applications).
I accept that you pay your money and make your choice, and it wouldn't do if we were all the same, but it all works fine for me!
Spot on! Which is why you can be sure that after the 5 years of this contract they will most definitely exercise the 3 year extension clause - means as long as the licence fee keeps rolling in then they won't have to worry about running a procurement until 2025!
What an absolute disgraceful use of public funds!
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make (other than the usual “Microsoft are evil and we all hate them <blah> <blah> <blah>…”
You say “Microsoft does not care about the non corporate user base” but this move absolutely does harm to the corporate user base - almost exclusively.
A consumer buying a new PC today with the latest Intel Kaby Lake chipset will likely buy the PC complete with an OS. It is highly probable that the OS bundled with that PC will be Windows - and the vendor will install Windows 10 (not least because the drivers to support the Kaby Lake chipset on Windows is only for Windows 10). There won’t be many consumers that will be buying a new PC to run a previous version of Windows on - that’s for sure.
However, there will be many corporates who will! They will do a deal with the vendor to bulk buy PC hardware and (if bought in sufficient numbers) to buy without an OS. They will want to run a previous version of Windows (8.1 or 7) - just some of the reasons for this will be: -
- They have a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement which already provides them with a Windows licence
- They don’t have Software Assurance with that EA agreement and therefore don’t have access to Windows 10 (thereby needing to run a previous version)
- They have specific Line of Business applications which are incompatible or not supported on Windows 10
- They have a corporate build of a previous version of Windows and now is not a good time for them to invest in creating a new one
Microsoft are absolutely not caring about the corporate user base here - the complete opposite of what you’re whinging about!
Supposedly during the Thatcher government in the 80's BT proposed a project to lay Fibre Optic cable to every premise in the UK at an exceptionally high cost (several billion pounds). The government canned the project deeming it too expensive and distracting from their goal to take BT public (IPO share offering) - and hence a great opportunity was scuppered.
Just imagine if they had gone ahead with that project!!!
The principle is absolutely sound - why on earth would you have multiple departments buying the same functional solutions from multiple vendors? The problem of course (as we all know) is the absolutely fantastic level of incompetence shown by those in charge of both setting up and running the Shared Service, along with those local departments that insist on the "I want to be in control and run things myself" attitude.
The reason why so many OEM's are not supporting Intel's Thunderbolt is because there is a mandatory requirement to deliver Video through it!
I firmly believe that if Intel relaxed this requirement, and under the terms of it's license allowed manufacturers to deliver everything but Video, then there would be a wider adoption of the technology.
Because OEM's are not delivering Thunderbolt, then Thunderbolt devices are few and far between - it's a real catch-22.
Until Intel relax this mandatory requirement then USB 3.0 will continue to win through. Thunderbolt is a great technology - but Intel have crippled it with stupid rules!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
