Microsoft comes under blistering criticism for “grossly irresponsible” security

Re:Microsoft comes under blistering criticism for “grossly i... by zlg_codes on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @09:54PM (#36980422)

One gains a lot of benefits by building with libre or permissive software. Proprietary software comes with licensing fees and sometimes complex DRM systems that need maintenance. There are totally situations where both are the better tool for the job, though generally the proprietary "solutions" are often just short-term "let's get this done now" stuff, that then later has an increased cost. Leaning on a proprietary solution also means you're downstream of any decision the makers of the tool make, including choosing to nuke your (and/or your business's) use case.

I can't comment on the LDAP thing on a technical level, but if the focus is on libre software, why is it apropos to list proprietary things that it's compatible with? Software that boasts this compatibility doesn't always keep it, or sometimes loses it due to deliberate action from the proprietary party. I don't think I'd list Active Directory either. It's not something one can vouch for unless they're literally Microsoft.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft comes under blistering criticism for “grossly i... by redserk on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @10:12PM (#36980527)

Unless your business is in the line of user authentication, what business advantage would one get by developing their own LDAP server? It would be an incredibly inefficient use of resources if you're a 100 person shop only wanting unified logins.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft comes under blistering criticism for “grossly i... by owenmarshall on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @10:19PM (#36980574)

This question feels like it belongs to another comment: where does GP talk about “developing ones own LDAP server”?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft comes under blistering criticism for “grossly i... by redserk on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @11:58PM (#36981198)

No, it was in response to the correct comment but I should elaborate.

> Leaning on a proprietary solution also means you're downstream of any decision the makers of the tool make, including choosing to nuke your (and/or your business's) use case.

My understanding is that OP is advocating free/libre software protects a business from changes in software that could affect the business' use case.

This risk is present in both proprietary and free/libre software. Maintainers may remove features that some users find critical. If a feature is removed and your business requires the feature, you now need to maintain a fork of the software or contribute development time upstream.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft comes under blistering criticism for “grossly i... by zlg_codes on Friday August 04, 2023 @02:31PM (#37003916)

You're right, by trusting any outside source for a dependency, you're still dependent. But as you noted, there's the option of adopting the software yourself and injecting it as vendored or something similar. Proprietary doesn't even have that.

Depending on the project, it may move slow enough for the dependency to be slow to update and it be fine. Depends on what you're doing.

At least in the case you mentioned, I can revert to an older version and freeze it there until my business can sort out the way forward.

Ideally, one chooses dependencies that are easy to replace and reasonable to maintain for a bit, if needed. Or if you're lucky, no dependencies at all!

[ Parent | on HN ]