That makes a nice change from you telling us it's all put together by amateurs.
If you can just get over the notion implicit in the last line that that's what the rest of us were thinking...
40471 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
400-500 people constitute a herd, following each other. In fact the basic argument seems to be that if everyone else is going along the same route it must be right. In fact it puts everyone into a dangerous situation, not particularly because it's Microsoft, Oracle or whatever but simply because of a monoculture.
Even with simple things such as so-ans-so's cloud going TITSUP for a few hours that's maybe entire organisations - and many organisations - with staff sitting idle or trying to revert to manual operations. How many organisations were temporarily flattened by Crowdstrike and that was only an add-on to the main platform.
If there is a vulnerability that gets exploited the damage isn't going to be a few hours, it's going to be months.
That applies whether it's proprietary S/W or FOSS. It's the over-dependence on a single platform that's the risk. Proprietary does, however, carry the additional risk that we now realise proprietary software coming from a single country could carry a political risk.
Even if the latter is improbably it's likely to be the one tat actually wake politicians up. There are an awful lot of Creese's "public sector business leaders" who are going to be left floundering if their political masters start asking about their plan B as are a lot of their private sector equivalents if their boards start to look around. And where that question gets passed onto them there are quite a few folks here who would be equally flummoxed.
"But it should be limited and controlled, not led by the technologists, but by public sector business leaders, accountable for and able to demonstrate return on investment, benefits realization, and UK public value for money."
Good idea. When are they going to be recruited. Actually, maybe not even a good idea because the usual complaint about business leaders in general is that they're likely to be technologically clueless and apt to believe anything the salesman tells them.
"Open source also comes with a range of less measurable costs – training, over-engineering, reliability, security maintenance, data interchange and interface complexity."
As opposed to assuming staff will just "know" Office etc* and be able to stumble along with Microsoft's next changes, under-engineering, MS <365, patch Tuesdays, proprietary "standards" and complexity**.
I think you make a convincing case for preferring FOSS to Microsoft.
If this Microsoft is the only viable option for public sector it is an excoriating condemnation of the public sector.
* Training costs saved here will become evident in CCed confidential data, Excel misused as a database with row limits overlooked and numerous other public sector ballsups traced back to lack of training.
** See stumbling along with Microsoft's next changes.
"The Home Office's official lines on encryption are confused. It says it has no intention of compelling messaging platforms to break encryption, but also demands they implement safety features to help detect criminal activity."
If the Home Office believes this is possible all it has to do to persuade the rest of us is to produce a proof of concept that withstands proper expert dissection. If it lacks the ability to do so itself it could commission it, preferably under terms where most of the payment is made when the experts agree it really works.
"Earlier this year, The Register reported that the North American colocation market was struggling with unprecedented occupancy rates and difficulties in building new facilities, which might explain some of the growth in less-crowded regions."
And then there's imported duty on what they need to kit them out. Isn't North Virginia within easy foot-shooting range of Washington?
"And by the rest of the country in their work. "
If they make Wilipedia Category 1 the consequent backlash may be sufficient to kill the whole thing.
"It's less sane than Brexit"
I'm not sure I'd go that far. Brexit was to get away from adult supervision and allow this sort of thing.
"Farage may as well start picking out wallpaper for No. 10."
That would be even less sane.
"Most hoped that the new Labour government would mean a change in direction for the country and give us back some of the freedoms that had been taken away through acts such as the snooper's charter Mk2 and the police and crime legislation."
I don't know why anybody would hope that. Labour has form on this. Re-election for any party relies on demographic turnover. Some of thise who remember the last time that lot were in are replaced by those who can't.
You should also remember that while governments come and go the Civil Service stays and brainwashing Home Secs into this sort of thing, which is their core policy, is the the Home Office's core competence.
Access is one element of it and I hope HMG are storing more data than the canteen lady's recopies. Trivialising that just makes you look silly. The other side is suddenly deciding to sanction someone - anything from an individual customer to a continent. The has already happened in the case of the ICC so it's something a government really shouldn't ignore.
Open source front ends to a proprietary service provider is scarcely a way to avoid lock-in. It's having the front end platform allow for a choice* of back end services that's critical, together with the availability of trustable service providers.
* Oh dear, that word. I'll have triggered all the Microsoft and Apple addicts.
"Please note that our privacy policy describes how we manage our membership - newsletter distrbution and access to shared storage - it does NOT cover any age verification services as we do not provide these."
So at least the AVPA members' privacy is preserved. I suppose they're grateful for that.
One way of increasing the breadth of experience in the ministerial ranks would be to select suitable individuals and make them members of the HoL. I've often thought that the presidents or equivalents of the various chartered institutes should be members ex officio. I doubt, however, that the HoC would appreciate being challenged by real expertise in the other place. (Despite all the posturing it's unlikely that we'll see elections to the Lords. MPs wouldn't like their claimed legitimacy as the only democratically elected chamber taken away.)
"I'm not saying we should just get rid of Microsoft, I'm saying Microsoft has got to be better at what it does,"
But what does he think Microsoft does? It makes money, that's what it does. Until it's made clear to Microsoft that it won't be allowed to make any money until it gets better at security nothing will happen because doing nothing doesn't eat into the money-making machine. Starting to get rid of Microsoft on clearly stated security grounds would be the only way to get it to do what he wants it to do as well as what it wants to do. That, of course would have to be allied to a firm stance that the getting rid will only stop wen improvements are demonstrated, not just promised by salesdroids.