Well my understanding of the word "bullied" must be different then, because i assumed it meant to use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively impose domination over others.
But hey anything that shows Microsoft that they shouldn't take their market dominance for granted like they have done in the past is good with me, the more people wake up to the fact that Microsoft isn't there to make their lives easier, but to make money the better IMHO.
Well .... you said it, not me.Originally Posted by Corky34
I'll call your Wikipedia definition, and raise you one Oxford English Dictionary quote ...
That, by the way, is an extract of part of the definition from the full, 20 volume, 600,000+ word version of the dictionary, and is one of about 10 different definitions of the word in the OED. I would give you a link, but I'm using the CD version, and my access to the full online version requires an account and password which, obviously, I can't give out. There is, I believe, a more limited free online version.
But again, it wasn't me that called it bullying. If the cap fits, though ....
funny, i've tried to run win update (as advised by MS) on several different machines and none of them detects this patch is available...
If you have business critical pieces of software and hardware that won't run on anything other than a retired operating system then I think you have bigger issues. There are a number of ways you can mitigate the risk involved (by removing network connectivity and hardening your OS for a start), but anything deemed "business critical" needs to be running in a supported manner.
A number of years ago I worked for a reasonably large construction and infrastructure company who had a single SPARC based server running what they deemed a business critical workload that they were paying an astronomical amount of cash to the vendor for support for. One year the beancounters took a look at the costs and decided that it wasn't worth renewing support. 2 weeks later the server went pop and they had no choice but to stump up to fly a senior tech over from the US at obscene rates in order to fix. That was a calculated business risk based off the fact that the server had been fine for a number of years, but it was still a risk.
Anyone running business critical operations either needs to accept the gamble that they're taking by running an unsupported system *or* having some sort of official and qualified support contract in place. XP EoL was not something that just happened out of the blue.
To be clear: I have no interest in whether you choose to continue to run XP. I'm just trying to put across the fact that "business critical" doesn't matter to Microsoft if you choose not to migrate to a supported platform: there is no revenue stream to pay for the development of these patches unless you're paying for extended support (like HMG are doing now to buy some time to get migrated to... likely Win7) and Microsoft are a business, not a charity.
EDIT - as an aside: you don't hear many people complaining about the Apple business model whereby you must be running one of the most recent variants (usually the most recent and the previous release) and as such OSX users must be running an OS released from July 2012 or more recent. Since the release of XP 13 years back Apple have ceased mainstream support for 8 releases of their OS. I feel that as Microsoft seem to move more towards a annual rolling release that they'll adopt a similar model.
Last edited by Splash; 03-05-2014 at 12:38 PM.
heres a thought - isn't IE classed as a separate product? so MS could well be patching IE and not Xp
IE6 was integrated with XP, so i guess you could take it either way, that they are patching IE 6 through to 11, instead of 7-11 Or that they are patching XP.
The question is would someone who was running IE 7 or 8 have received the patch if the held true to not supporting XP anymore ?
Every IT worker who's been warning their bosses that upgrading their Internet-facing office of 400 XP machines to newer is now a liar. Said boss knows not to trust them - Microsoft will keep patching forever. Hooray!
What tosh.
They are still actively at risk, they have no agreement that MS will patch or update anything. If the IT manager can not explain that to their bosses they are clearly lacking in fundamental skills.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
ik9000 (05-05-2014)
I agree that running on unsupported systems is a risk. So is running on supported systems, or would you suggest that problems are never encountered, on suppirted systems? No, thought not.
The issue is what risks? And, what would it cost to address them?
In my case, and this 'business critical' point started because I said ONE reason to not upgrade was because important (not critical, but important) stuff was on software that won't run under W7, etc.
In my case, that being the example I referred to, addressing the problem means either buying a new system, then finding software that will allow me to develop the customised databases I would need, then learning the software, then developing the routines .... and after all that, either porting accross or finding some other way of getting data accross. Just about every stage of that process involves some risk, and not inconsiderable cost.
Or, carry on using my existing system.
So, take a long hard look at the 'risk' of doing that.
First, I've been using this system, the database software and the customised routines, for, what 20 years or so. If there was anything wrong with that now unsupported database software, or my routines, I think I'd have noticed by now. And, worst case, I re-install, XP, re-install database package (in fact, restore an image), restore data backup, and job done.
What risk do I run from XP no longer heing supported? None at all. That particular system is running XP SP1, and hasn't been patched, AT ALL, since. Why would I, when it works fine?
Remember, no internet connection. No wifi, and the hardware is of an era where ethernet wasn't on the mobo, and that machine has no network card. It's not even a case of taping over the ethernet port, because there isn't one to tape over.
So, what risks? The software has run successfully for years. The XP installation is stable. Everything is backed up.
About the only risk is that hardware goes bang. And I have several complete and working systems I could press into use, and a cupboard full of bits for repairs. For instance, about a dozen hard drives, three motherboards, at least four brand new and unused Athlon XP processors, plenty of memory, and so forth.
So, what risk, exactly, do I run, by using unsupported XP? Is something that's worked for years going to stop working because MS no longer "support" XP?
I don't need apps patched, because anything I use on that machine has been on it for years, exactly as it is now. I don't need "security" patches because that machine has about the best internet security conceivable, that being, it's totally disconnected and short if installing hardware in it, cannot be connected.
The cost of upgrading to get supported would be very considerable. And utterly not worth doing.
That self-evidently won't always be the case for business critical/important situations, and indeed, iften won't be. Though, I'd suggest that for anyone with an XP system they think needs upgrading, the very first question they need to ask is if the machine is net-connected, does it need to be? If not, you eliminate the bulk of the "risk" from MS discontinuing support by disconnecting from the net.
I'm NOT suggesting no XP users should upgrade, or that nobody should upgrade, even if it means buying a new machine, which it often will. I'm suggesting it isn't always necessary, and there are situations where there are very good reasons for sticking with XP. I gave three - that customised software, and the data in it, another PC with hard or impossible to replace hardware and no W7 drivers, and the elderly lady.
Some people probably should bite the bulket and upgrade. I definitrly don't run my net-connected systems this way. But not everybody needs to upgrade, and SOME XP systems aren't at any increased risk as a result of MS withdrawing support.
Yep - you've done a risk assessment and deemed that you have sufficient mitigation, no network connection being a big start. I'm also assuming that you're in a good place in terms of replacement hardware in the event of a failure.
As you've stated elsewhere: the code doesn't wear out - it's not as if Microsoft are holding a knife against your throat and stating that you *must* upgrade. They've just reached a well publicised point where they state that they will no longer fix any newly discovered problems with it, and as demonstrated by the story at the head of this thread there *are* still issue being discovered even now.
So as the IT manager you explain that there are no more patches (as is well documented), then Microsoft issue a patch. The PHB is now going to expect them to do this for any major security issue in future.
Thankfully I don't find myself in this situation: we're midway through our migration to 8.1 and XP is waaaaaaaay behind us.
Making you as the IT manager look like an idiot in the eyes of the PHB.
I've had this on a smaller scale with clients. I tell them repeatedly that we are out with spec for doing a job, they contact head office directly to see how we can proceed, head office change the spec for this job to appease the client. I then look like an ass.
Welcome to working in IT
Happens in all industries.Welcome to working in IT
That has happened to me several times while offshore, on refineries, chemical plants and power stations
It's one of the reasons I *love* my current job. Senior management are all from tech backgrounds and as such will always back advice from their staff (unless there's a very good reason not to).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
