MAI-Cyber-1-Flash inside MDASH

Windows OS is what keeps most users in Microsoft's ecosystem.

I am still on Windows as some software I need to use aren't on Linux.

I am waiting for the day that I can get rid of Windows completely.

When I do that what Microsoft product do you think I will still use ? Office ? Azure ? Copilot ? :)) Outlook ?

No MSFT product ever!

Will I ever recommended Microsoft's products to my clients - Never

Sure, Microsoft has a grip on Enterprise.

Let's see how long that lasts if Windows keeps going downhill.

I do agree with you on this.

But as a consumer that's not my concern.

I am at least a Windows user since three decades, I know my way around the OS and did extensive troubleshooting. What happens to a normal Windows user ?

I have developed habits and workflow on my machine to optimize my time. Now every time I get back to work I am hoping that it works coming out of hibernate.

Is that how a modern OS should be ?

I have a Windows 10 machine that has stopped getting updates. I am satisfied with that.

I consider that Windows 10 machine 'reliable' now that Microsoft isn't breaking things for me.

But backwards compatibility isn't actually that hard if you're not horrendously mismanaged to begin with. You have some ancient miserable APIs from the 1990s that you still have to support, fine, but that's not actually that bad. Old APIs tend to be small because computers were small that far back, you write a compatibility layer and can keep using it. By definition the old stuff never changes so you only have to do it once.

The actual problem is that Microsoft is full of little fiefdoms. Because what they should do, after becoming a huge behemoth with the resources to do it (which has been the case for more than two decades), is to design a set of good, modern APIs, also only once. Something that you're happy to support forever because you took the time to get it right. Then you only have to support that and the little compatibility layer for truly ancient software.

Instead, they have an army of middle managers who are practically at war with each other to show that they can introduce some kind of novel "improvement", the vast majority of which quickly fall out of favor but then have to be supported indefinitely if you don't want to break backwards compatibility. And that makes backwards compatibility a huge ordeal because every year there is more poorly-engineered rubbish you have to support forever.

You've got to call it something, and calling it "cyber" differentiates it from all the other kinds of security. I doubt it means much to talk about "security" to the government, that could as much mean a missile system, but I don't know, that's not my area of work.

To us developers who work with computing all day it feels cringe because the cyber part is implied, and "security" is the differentiator., so you can just talk about working in "security" or "infosec".

Is "cyber" a bit of a relic that dates when the government started taking it seriously? Of course, but I don't know if there is a good alternative that doesn't have other connotations. It probably also acts as a bit of a shibboleth in both directions, "cyber" for those in the government sphere, "infosec" in the commercial.

tbh all of this has always struck me as an ego thing from the MAI team, who are mostly based in Silicon Valley, not Redmond, and think of themselves as too cool for Microsoft

It seems that others like that though.