6 ms·

No Microsoft is not to blame. Whoever sells themselves into an all encompassing ecosystem with no exit plan or backup is to blame. It’s absolutely stupid thinki

No Microsoft is not to blame. Whoever sells themselves into an all encompassing ecosystem with no exit plan or backup is to blame. It’s absolutely stupid thinking even if it’s the norm these days. The cloud is a convenience at most and an expensive one. You do everything you need to do somewhere else and pray that no one else gets in or you get shot. This is a warning to everyone else. Heed it.

Brian_K_White 25d ago
MS is absolutely to blame for their part. Sure also the victim should have known better. So what?
- cavem0nkey 25d ago
  Microsoft wouldn’t have a business if there weren’t so many fools around.
tomhow 25d ago
Please avoid this kind of scolding, berating tone on HN, and omit sneers, swipes, and name-calling from comments. The guidelines make it clear we're here for curious conversation, not this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cavem0nkey 24d ago
  Sorry I didn't feel this was scolding but I look back and see it may be taken that way. The nature of the comment was that we should strip the narrative about this being a non-profit from the discussion and apply what is left to ourselves. It acts as a warning that we should really evaluate and consider our trust relations with a vendor who has control over everything that we do. And make sure we don't make the same mistakes.
snayan 24d ago
Brother, you are living in a bubble. This article is about a group of people who are trying to make the world a better place in their own little way. Many of them do not have the technical skillset to understand the potential future problems they have since run into. Many of them, as you acknowledged, probably chose this option for convenience. Is it ideal? No. Is it the reality of the world we live in? Yes. A bit of empathy goes a long way, doesn't cost you anything. You're not going to win many people over to your cause with this kind of vitriol.
- cavem0nkey 24d ago
  Sorry if the tone was off but I'm trying to peel off the layers of narrative on this and get to the real story. And that is the all too common story of a combination of poorly defined and enforced policy by a vendor and a strategy of hope and ignorance from a customer. The non-profit part of it is moot. This could happen to anyone. I'm more than a little annoyed that "non-profit" and "charity" is used to shape opinion. Having worked for a charity before, they aren't necessarily the bastions of moral virtue even when claiming non-profit status. I've seen cash efficiencies so low that there's almost no point in them existing. Not that it matters, again because this problem applies to non-profit and profit organisations. Thus this should be a warning to people here to make sure that you have an exit plan and a strategy if you use the services regardless of who you are or what you do. Not hatred of the vendor. Because every single vendor out there can arbitrarily cut you off from a service at their will through automation, incompetence or malicious behaviour and there's probably nothing you can do about it.

Brian_K_White 25d ago

MS is absolutely to blame for their part. Sure also the victim should have known better. So what?

cavem0nkey 25d ago
Microsoft wouldn’t have a business if there weren’t so many fools around.

tomhow 25d ago

Please avoid this kind of scolding, berating tone on HN, and omit sneers, swipes, and name-calling from comments. The guidelines make it clear we're here for curious conversation, not this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

cavem0nkey 24d ago
Sorry I didn't feel this was scolding but I look back and see it may be taken that way. The nature of the comment was that we should strip the narrative about this being a non-profit from the discussion and apply what is left to ourselves. It acts as a warning that we should really evaluate and consider our trust relations with a vendor who has control over everything that we do. And make sure we don't make the same mistakes.

snayan 24d ago

Brother, you are living in a bubble. This article is about a group of people who are trying to make the world a better place in their own little way. Many of them do not have the technical skillset to understand the potential future problems they have since run into. Many of them, as you acknowledged, probably chose this option for convenience. Is it ideal? No. Is it the reality of the world we live in? Yes. A bit of empathy goes a long way, doesn't cost you anything. You're not going to win many people over to your cause with this kind of vitriol.

cavem0nkey 24d ago
Sorry if the tone was off but I'm trying to peel off the layers of narrative on this and get to the real story. And that is the all too common story of a combination of poorly defined and enforced policy by a vendor and a strategy of hope and ignorance from a customer. The non-profit part of it is moot. This could happen to anyone. I'm more than a little annoyed that "non-profit" and "charity" is used to shape opinion. Having worked for a charity before, they aren't necessarily the bastions of moral virtue even when claiming non-profit status. I've seen cash efficiencies so low that there's almost no point in them existing. Not that it matters, again because this problem applies to non-profit and profit organisations. Thus this should be a warning to people here to make sure that you have an exit plan and a strategy if you use the services regardless of who you are or what you do. Not hatred of the vendor. Because every single vendor out there can arbitrarily cut you off from a service at their will through automation, incompetence or malicious behaviour and there's probably nothing you can do about it.