OpenAI employees really, really did not want to go work for Microsoft
OpenAI employees really, really did not want to go work for Microsoft
During the chaos after Sam Altman's ouster, Microsoft offered to hire the CEO and his entire workforce. Insiders now say it was a bluff that worked.
You're viewing a single thread.
Another former OpenAI employee agreed, saying people working at the San Francisco-based startup "look down on what they consider legacy companies" and "see themselves as innovators who are radically changing the world."
I despise Microsoft's advertising and some of its anti-competitive practices, but man, fuck these out of touch, clout chasing, dorks. Microsoft has been making products for 30 years that are stable enough for most of the world's companies to build successful businesses on top of.
There are flat out no SV companies that can claim the same longevity, and only one or two, like Google / Salesforce, that actually enable the rest of the economy in any meaningful way.
SV is a beautiful place and the money that flows into it makes it seem like paradise, but it also deludes everyone there into thinking that they're vastly smarter and more important than they actually are.
The only reason any of those businesses use Microsoft products is because of active directory and exchange. Both of which are legacy products that are being, if not already, phased out. The real truth is this, the enterprise runs on Microsoft, but the world runs on Linux. Windows is so bad for containers that Microsoft has to make their own distro of Linux specifically for containers with azure Linux and that's just one example of the technical debt Windows creates. The quicker NT can finally die is when the world can finally move towards real innovation instead of being handicapped by Microsoft and their unfair business practices. Some of us haven't forgotten "embrace, extend, and extinguish" which is exactly what they're doing in the gaming markets by buying up the competition.
The only reason any of those businesses use Microsoft products is because of active directory and exchange. Both of which are legacy products that are being, if not already, phased out.
From an IT perspective it's active directory and exchange (and lol no they're not being faced out, there's nothing better to replace them), but from a business process standpoint it's because of Outlook and Excel.
Your hatred for Microsoft is blinding you from reality.
They actually are being phased out. Traditional AD powered through LDAP is going the way of the dodo with the inception of azure AD and exchange is getting replaced by o365 for business. As for Outlook, the latest version is trash and Excel is great for the most part but when you build entire workflows out of Excel with Oracle connections and pivot tables it's complete dog shit to manage from an IT perspective. There's a reason damn near every web server ruins through Apache on a Linux box instead of IIS.
I literally create AD groups as a small part of my job
Obviously, I can't go into any more details just in case. Yes, certainly Linux is King of the server world.
But your information is not up to date. We're not going to Azure anytime soon. Congratulations, you are making broad sweeping claims that just don't hold up to the least amount of investigation.
I think the point is that Microsoft is phasing out AD and Exchange by making the licensing costs prohibitively more expensive than just using their cloud identity, mail, and SaaS services.
We are still on prem for AD but that’s due to legacy software that requires it and will be that way for a while but cost will eventually have us on a cloud identity provider and it will probably be Azure
We already are on exchange online, the costs just don’t make sense to host exchange on premises unless you have a legacy reason too.
I really want to respond to your comment and go in more depth as to how my work situation is with AD groups etc etc
I just don't want to be careless and speak more about the particular infrastructure of my company's workflow than I need to
Suffice to say, we are continuing to move assets to a cloud hosting service. Due to our unique solution, we still require AD groups.
Funny enough, we need the AD groups for the cloud assets to run as expected. It's a different kind of authorization on-prem
The way I (layman) read it, they seemed to be saying that it would be phased out by newer companies finding different alternatives, not that everyone is phasing it out as we speak.
Does this seem more realistic? Or just completely non-factual?
I wouldn't say non-factual.
I would just say that rule isn't universal. My company is moving assets into a cloud hosting service. And right now, AD are 100% needed for those assets to have authorization.
It was a different authorization solution on premises.
So basically, the opposite of what he was saying in my particular situation. Of course I can't speak to all companies.
The truth is, faceless datacenters run linux. PEOPLE run Windows.
Only because they don't know any better. Microsoft's marketing and retail reach are what decide that, not the people's informed decision making.
Wow. Microsoft exists because they've built an effective monopoly. Plain and simple. Their products don't suck but they absolutely would not survive if they completed in a free market environment. They are staffed with legions of engineers who see it as a safe haven metaphorically or literally (visa workers)