What did they expect? They bought a product dependent on somebody else's computer so shouldn't be surprised when it gets switched off.
You'd expect that be now people should have learned better but, no, the Gadarene rush continues.
40432 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Microsoft 365 for Education meets all required data protection standards and institutions in the education sector can continue to use it in compliance with GDPR. We will review the Austrian data protection authority's decision and decide on next steps in due course."
Translation: "We're right. Maybe we'll ge round to reading this bit of paper that says we're not and then work out how to ignore it becuase we're right."
There appears to be no consideration of the risk or impact of data breaches of the age verifiers. Search for "breach" produces most hits on breach of contract. There are very few mentions of "personal data". There are a few hits for "privacy including this magnificent piece of hand-waving:
"There are a number of indirect costs and wider impacts on society which have not been monetised, these include ... privacy implications*, and trade impacts - these have all been thoroughly assessed qualitatively." followed, unsurprisingly, by an empty table in which benefits could be but aren't listed.
* Yes, next to last.
As he was contacted by his boss Steve would have every reason to believe that it was approved, especially with a solid reason of reducing costs by eliminating redundant rack space. If anyone were to get fired it should have been the boss.
OTOH it does seem a bit extreme to remove an unidentified bit of kit without documenting it. Maybe they were a bit stir-crazy after lockdown.
"I'm still learning about how the UK operates (does anybody know?)."
It separates Head of State (the monarch) from Head of Government (Prime Minister). Institutions such as the Army owe loyalty to the former. The latter makes the policy decisions in conjunction with the ministers who they appoint. PM & senior ministers have to be Members of Parliament (MPs - PM is also an MP, pleasing symmetry) so, as individuals, directly elected to Parliament. The PM is the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons (the directly elected House); although not directly elected to the office the PM needs to retain the confidence of the party and also needs to be able to maintain a majority in the HOC as a whole. If they fail either the party needs a quick reverse ferret as in replacing Truss with Sumak or call a general election.
House of Lords scrutinises Bills passed by the HoC but hs limited powers to hold it up. It still retains some hereditary members but is mostly life peers and some ex officio. The latter are bishops of the CoE; I'm not sure whether the senior judiciary still sit as Law Lords.* The life peers are appointed on "merit" but are largely political retreads from the HoC, party donors or those to whom the PM (and especially departing PMs) think are owed favours or will be supporters. Nevertheless there are some there on merit (this includes a few celebrities with long careers behind them which PMs think will brighten up the twice-yearly honours lists). It should be said there is scrutiny so it's not actually a free for all. Personally I think the leaders of the various professional institutes should be included ex officio. It's an interesting situation in that it might not be democratic but it provides for a longer term view that surviving to tonight's vote in the HoC which might be the PM's view, or, at best, until the next general election. Opposition parties, particularly Labour, threaten to reform the Lords but in practice it never happens because the HoC claims the authority of being the only directly elected House & is shit scared of losing that satus; the most they do is reduce the number of hereditaries.
Needless to say, the separation of roles means that the monarch is far from an absolute ruler. They do have a theoretical veto on legislation but this hasn't been exercised for a very long time. There is a weekly meeting audience with the PM which is confidential although a number of PMs have made clear they really welcome that opportunity to discuss things with about the only person they know who won't leak. The balance between monarch & PM varies according to circumstances. When Elizabeth II succeeded the PM she was very young, in her 20s & the PM was Churchill, very much the elder statesman who was able to act as a mentor. By the end the PMs although never as young as she'd been, had lived their entire lives, let alone their political lives, in her resign. Charles** has a long experience as understudy. He seems to be a bit more assertive than his mother had been.
There have been a number of occasions in the past where the monarch was able to use their influence as HoS to assist the government diplomatically but the essence of the monarchy is that it stays out of government. That situation was substantially developed since the US declared independance. It stemmed from the fact that a few generations before George I came to the throne with little or no English. Why the US, wanting no more kings, combined the two roles is beyond comprehension.
*.The HoL used to act as the supreme court although in practice it was just senior judges who handled that business. A few years ago the function was formally separated as a Supreme Court with a proper title.
** A bit younger than me, came to the job at an age where I'd been happily retired for many years. I have no envy at all of a job from which one can't retire.
"The reason for the change was a restructuring in which they let go of half the IT department. The cost of that is that we simply can't afford to manage two platforms."
I hope those who went through the bereavement of losing their Macs included those who let half the IT department go.
Field service is a bit smarter but -
We just had our connection repaired after it got water into the underground connection. All tests run satisfactorily except "It looks as if you have a split pair problem but it might be your router." Unplugged the router and connected his test direct to the master socket. "No, it's not the connection, it must be your router." Split pairs not being my area I didn't get chance to look it up until he'd left when I realised that (a) it's more likely to be the router to master socket cable, (b) that he bypassed the router and cable to run his test and (c) if I'd known that while he was still here I'd have grabbed a spare cable which I know I have.
"The next steps are more tricky, though. Installing involves dual boot, or careful work with disks and partitions, and that gets fiddly to explain. People tend not to have backups of their documents."
What's needed here is an installer that recognises the Windows partition, shrinks it to make space for the installation and then links the directory with the user's documents into the home directory of the Linux user's home directory.
In such a situation what is the percentage of turnout? What portion of 100% - that would have voted otherwise and held the opinion that "my vote doesn't count"? If that portion had voted what would the outcome have been?
There's only one situation where your vote doesn't count. It's not casting it in the first place.
"From a revenue perspective, I can see no benefit to Microsoft, and they are taking a substantial reputational hit, so some other factor must be at work."
Why can you see not revenue benefit to Microsoft? You're supposed to go out and buy new Windows 11 licences - that means revenue. They come attached to new hardware. MS might feel a small amount of loyalty to the H/W manufacturers because it was they who were the main selling agents for Windows over the years.
Of course if they just obsoleted W10 without an upgrade path they'd expect to face class actions. If they allow everyone to upgrade they miss the revenue. TPM 2 allows them a way out - they can provide upgrades to more recent purchases to fend off some of the potential class actions but limit the downside of that by pointing to "obsolete" H/W to defend against the rest.
But of course its about revenue - the licences and all the nasty upselling apportunities they can shoehorn into W11.
Not because the EU complained but because the EU has consumer protection legislation. So EU consumers - those using the Home editions - benefited because it was the law and the EU was big enough to be able to enforce that law. Given that the UK also has consumer protection law - it was some of that red tape theydidn't get round to burning - it applies in the UK as well. It won't apply in countries that don't have or can't be bothered enforcing such legislation and it won't apply to commercial versions because because commercial buyers are supposed to be knowledgeable enough to make informed decisions.
I think MS have denied it was an official policy statement.
It's taking them a bit longer to get Windows as a service in place but you can have Windows 10 as a service. All you have to do is pay for extended cover this year, more for extended cover next year etc.
Once you get used to that Windows 12 will be along as a subscription only service.
It needs to be instil in businesses from the board down and governments from the head of government down that personal data is toxic. If you don't really need it then it's toxic waste. If it has to be handled at all then handle it as carefully as you'd handle a strongly radioactive biohazard.
But how to achieve that?
There used to be a principle "Polluter pays". Perhaps any vendor who deliberately turns a device to potential landfill by making it obsolete or, even worse, bricks it by turning off a server that supports it remotely, should be required to (a) compensate the owner for residual value which it would have had were it not abandoned and (b) recycling costs.
I can imagine stuff going through a 1mm sieve would include some which were recognizably copper, at least, tinned copper. But given that the precious metals are going to be thin coatings they're still going to be a small enough proportion of whatever they're on to make it easy to sort from stuff that doesn't have any.