Microsoft to make Windows security more Mac like

[Lakados]

https://9to5mac.com/2024/07/26/micr...ndows-security-more-like-mac-post-crowdstrike

TLDR;
CrowdStrike was expensive AF, and Microsoft is getting called out for its lack of security.

I expect they will be forced to throw a lot of legacy compatibility out the window to achieve this.
I wonder how much they lean into Linux to accomplish it.

 

[sleepeeg3]

Read somewhere that MS was blaming the EU - they were forced to give the code for kernel access, as part of it's settlement to the EU on some Windows anti-trust action (Internet Explorer?).
I don't know if that is true, but government regulations always have unforseen consequences.

 

[MrGuvernment]

I wish MS would throw out legacy crap for those of us not on 5+ year old systems.

MS needs a highly optimised for newer hardware version of Windows. Say the last 5 years of hardware only supported period and old apps, tough, go stick with another version or upgrade your apps companies, and spend your profits where it is needed, instead of still needing XP boxes to run some old obscure app.

But, for me, dont care, love my linux!

 

[MrGuvernment]

Read somewhere that MS was blaming the EU - they were forced to give the code for kernel access, as part of it's settlement to the EU on some Windows anti-trust action (Internet Explorer?).
I don't know if that true, but government regulations always have unforseen consequences.

Basically running any AV/EDR security in the user space vs kernel, makes it completely useless as any malicious actors could easily bypass it. So yes, EU forced MS to open their OS so 3rd parties could offer the same level of "security"

meanwhile, defender can be easily bypassed a powershell command...

 

[atarione]

I mean this is all fine and good ... but didn't crowdstrike bork a bunch of linux machines a few months ago as well? Pretty sure they were causing kernel panic in Debian and RedHat Enterprise systems in June or whatever...

crowdstrike may just be very very talented at crashing computer systems?

 

[uOpt]

I mean this is all fine and good ... but didn't crowdstrike bork a bunch of linux machines a few months ago as well? Pretty sure they were causing kernel panic in Debian and RedHat Enterprise systems in June or whatever...

crowdstrike may just be very very talented at crashing computer systems?

If you run complex software in the kernel you take down the machine. It is just a question of time.

But apparently they were not taking down Macs.

 

[uOpt]

Read somewhere that MS was blaming the EU - they were forced to give the code for kernel access, as part of it's settlement to the EU on some Windows anti-trust action (Internet Explorer?).
I don't know if that is true, but government regulations always have unforseen consequences.

Microsoft was making special kernel functionality that was helping its own products.

If at the same time Microsoft would restrict access to the kernel to themselves only you have an anti-competetive situation where non-MS software cannot compete fairly. The EU is not tolerating that anymore, especially not from Microsoft.

The winning move is to kick all this garbage out of the kernel.

 

[Nobu]

Microsoft was making special kernel functionality that was helping its own products.

If at the same time Microsoft would restrict access to the kernel to themselves only you have an anti-competetive situation where non-MS software cannot compete fairly. The EU is not tolerating that anymore, especially not from Microsoft.

The winning move is to kick all this garbage out of the kernel.

While I agree, in this case the software was integral to the security of the OS. It's like saying "look, you can't just hire your own guys to guard your headquarters if you're gonna give them body armor and guns. You gotta let people bring their own bodyguards in, and give them the guns too!" ("oh, and maybe let them have access to the company files, while you're at it!")

Microsoft was fucked either way.

That said, yeah, move as much as possible out of the kernel, make the communication channels/apis rock solid. Break compatibility if you need to for security. No sense being compatible with old viruses, after all.

 

[cjcox]

Low level intrusion ware, things that operate in place of or as a proxy of normal kernel operations will always be able to "tank the system". But, we pay for these things.

Stop it. Installing effectively a "root kit" made by someone claiming to be "holy" doesn't make it holy.

 

[DukenukemX]

I expect they will be forced to throw a lot of legacy compatibility out the window to achieve this.
I wonder how much they lean into Linux to accomplish it.

Microsoft wants to lock down the bootloader and thinks that'll make it more like Mac. Either that or force people to use the app store like Apple does, except Apple doesn't on MacOS. Meanwhile, the reason this happened is because Crowdstrike was given low level kernel privileges that isn't normally done with other applications besides anti-virus software.

If you run complex software in the kernel you take down the machine. It is just a question of time.

But apparently they were not taking down Macs.

That's because nobody uses Mac. It's not like Mac isn't effected by bad applications given root.

I wish MS would throw out legacy crap for those of us not on 5+ year old systems.

What legacy crap?

MS needs a highly optimised for newer hardware version of Windows. Say the last 5 years of hardware only supported period and old apps, tough, go stick with another version or upgrade your apps companies, and spend your profits where it is needed, instead of still needing XP boxes to run some old obscure app.

This is the strategy Apple went with and its been going bad for them. It's great to have an ideology when you want everyone else to join in and suffer. A lot of what you're suggesting is going to ultimately cost money.

But, for me, dont care, love my linux!

Linux runs legacy stuff better than Windows and it's very secure. The problem is that Microsoft doesn't spend enough time securing Windows which needs software like Crowdstrike. Microsoft's idea of security is TPM 2.0, Secure boot, and Pluton. Apple's idea of security is locking everyone else out, which results in software like Triangulation and Pegasus. Linux's idea of security is just making sure you fix all the security holes as best as you can because thanks to open source it's very transparent.

 

[cjcox]

Microsoft wants to lock down the bootloader and thinks that'll make it more like Mac. Either that or force people to use the app store like Apple does, except Apple doesn't on MacOS. Meanwhile, the reason this happened is because Crowdstrike was given low level kernel privileges that isn't normally done with other applications besides anti-virus software.

That's because nobody uses Mac. It's not like Mac isn't effected by bad applications given root.

What legacy crap?

This is the strategy Apple went with and its been going bad for them. It's great to have an ideology when you want everyone else to join in and suffer. A lot of what you're suggesting is going to ultimately cost money.

Linux runs legacy stuff better than Windows and it's very secure. The problem is that Microsoft doesn't spend enough time securing Windows which needs software like Crowdstrike. Microsoft's idea of security is TPM 2.0, Secure boot, and Pluton. Apple's idea of security is locking everyone else out, which results in software like Triangulation and Pegasus. Linux's idea of security is just making sure you fix all the security holes as best as you can because thanks to open source it's very transparent.
View attachment 668749

In all fairness Microsoft's own MDATP AFAIK, on Linux, has the capability to destroy Linux at will. Closed source companies demanding to inject their software into the operational layers. Just say no.

 

[Bigbacon]

I wish MS would throw out legacy crap for those of us not on 5+ year old systems.

MS needs a highly optimised for newer hardware version of Windows. Say the last 5 years of hardware only supported period and old apps, tough, go stick with another version or upgrade your apps companies, and spend your profits where it is needed, instead of still needing XP boxes to run some old obscure app.

But, for me, dont care, love my linux!

going end up with Vista all over again.

 

[M76]

So basically MS wants to solve gun crime by introducing gun control legislation? Preventing legit apps from doing their jobs while malicious actors laugh at the new "law"?

 

[DukenukemX]

going end up with Vista all over again.

Vista was bad because Microsoft broke a lot of drivers and what graphic drivers were provided by ATI and Nvidia were performing terribly compared to Windows XP. Stuff like hardware audio acceleration from DirectSound was just removed. Windows XP being a pure 32-bit OS that was built on an entirely different kernel was able to run old 16-bit DOS and Windows 95 drivers, while still able to run older DOS applications. This is why MrGuvernment's idea of forcing everyone to adopt new standards wouldn't work because it didn't for Vista, and it also didn't for Windows RT. People like being able to run their old hardware and software. The Linux community loves the idea of forcing people to adopt newer and better systems, despite that those systems are broken and have poor compatibility. This is why the Linux community hates Linux Mint because Linux Mint is not using Wayland and modern UI's like KDE, and the reason Mint doesn't is because these new systems have bugs and compatibility issues. Same thing with Arch Linux because it does often break. Dumping "legacy crap" wouldn't even fix the problem because this is ultimately Microsoft being slow to find and patch vulnerabilities. Both Microsoft and Apple try to secure their OS's from the outside in, which isn't working. Linux secures form the inside out, which is why the world runs on Linux. This is why Pegasus hardly effects Android, but universally effects iOS even though Android devices tend to also secure from the outside in, but because it's running on the Linux kernel it's both inside and outside secure. Trying to be as secure as Apple is idiotic because if Apple computers were to suddenly all crash and break, would the world stop? You'd just hear a lot of yelling at Starbucks. If Linux servers were to crash all over the world, you'd see cats and dogs living together. Mass hysteria!

 

[cpufrost]

That's because nobody uses Mac.

Funniest thing I heard a Mac shop say:

"Macs are for professionals that need to get work done. Windows users spend all their time updating their systems and running virus scanners."

 

[philb2]

Either that or force people to use the app store like Apple does, except Apple doesn't on MacOS.

For which software? Does that mean, as an example, that all my Adobe Lightroom updates would go through the app store? I sure hope not. And every one-man shop that has a nifty utility would have to use the app store, like say Beyond Compare or Nirsoft. So how would beta programs work? The thought shrivels my gut.

That's because nobody uses Mac. It's not like Mac isn't effected by bad applications given root.

Much as I am a PC user since dirt was first invented, I do know lots of people, smart people, who get a lot of stuff done on Macs.

What legacy crap?

This is the strategy Apple went with and its been going bad for them.

Why do you say, "going bad for them?"

Linux's idea of security is just making sure you fix all the security holes as best as you can because thanks to open source it's very transparent.

Of course. Too bad there really isn't one Linux. Just a gazillion different distros with different install technologies. And different GUI environments.

Microsoft wants to lock down the bootloader and thinks that'll make it more like Mac.

How would that work? Would this new bootloader prevent someone from dual-booting Windows and Linux? Or old versions of Windows?

 

[Mazzspeed]

This is why the Linux community hates Linux Mint because Linux Mint is not using Wayland and modern UI's like KDE, and the reason Mint doesn't is because these new systems have bugs and compatibility issues. Same thing with Arch Linux because it does often break.

Back when I was running Mint, it broke good with a simple update. Not only that, Mint still has issues today that I was experiencing ~6 years ago.

With it's outdated kernel, Mint isn't even strictly an LTS release, so compatibility issues under certain configurations are practically a given. The only Mint variant to follow LTS releases is Mint 'Edge'...There's nothing 'Edge' about following LTS releases. However, when it comes to Wayland, I agree 100% - Too many compromises and a fragmented experience due to the fact that too much functionality is left up to the DE itself with Wayland being no more than a stripped out protocol.

 

[DukenukemX]

For which software? Does that mean, as an example, that all my Adobe Lightroom updates would go through the app store? I sure hope not. And every one-man shop that has a nifty utility would have to use the app store, like say Beyond Compare or Nirsoft. So how would beta programs work? The thought shrivels my gut.

Microsoft tried this with Windows RT, an ARM based Windows back in 2012.

Much as I am a PC user since dirt was first invented, I do know lots of people, smart people, who get a lot of stuff done on Macs.

If every Mac computer were to become inoperable, would the world even notice? Apple stock would go down for a day, but would it take down airports and shut down businesses? The world wouldn't blink an eye. If Microsoft said they were going to be as secure as Linux, then I'd be excited that Microsoft would finally make a Windows based on the Linux kernel. Keep in mind that Crowdstrike wasn't installed on all Windows machines, so the outage wasn't as wide spread as it could have been. Even still, businesses lost millions from it.

Why do you say, "going bad for them?"

Last year it was reported that Apple's Mac sales had declined 34% year over year and it hasn't gotten better since. This is why so many people were confused that Microsoft wants to go ARM when it hasn't been doing any favors for Apple. Is it a surprise that Apple is losing market share when their customers are dealing with performance and compatibility issues while unable to run Windows applications at 100% performance like on Intel Macs?

Of course. Too bad there really isn't one Linux. Just a gazillion different distros with different install technologies. And different GUI environments.

That's not a bad thing. Even still, it's not like you can't run software on Arch and Linux Mint because of these differences. If you distill most Linux distros, they're based on Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch with Ubuntu itself based on Debian. It's not like Windows doesn't have a bunch of version with compatibility issues. Good luck running modern software on Windows 7.

How would that work? Would this new bootloader prevent someone from dual-booting Windows and Linux? Or old versions of Windows?

Just look at Qualcomm and their Snapdragon X chips. It still doesn't have a stable version of Linux because of a number of things lacking. Even Linus Torvalds had a quick mention of the problems of ARM bootloaders. The comments section goes on about bootloader issues with ARM since there is no standard. Or look at Chromebooks and how they handle things, as well as Android. This is what I mean about outside in security since most of these devices just make installing anything difficult, even though none of this prevents virus infections. This is just to protect corporate interests since nobody wants you install anything on their... I mean your devices. Apple does it and nobody bats an eye, but again hardly anyone uses Macs.

 

[M76]

Much as I am a PC user since dirt was first invented, I do know lots of people, smart people, who get a lot of stuff done on Macs.

Macs are used as personal workstations, not as mission critical infrastructure. The closest to the latter that I saw is using a Mac to direct a concert.
Nobody in the greater scheme will notice if a few users are unproductive for a day or two. These hipster types who love Macs are already unproductive for 90% of the day.

 

[Red Falcon]

With it's outdated kernel, Mint isn't even strictly an LTS release, so compatibility issues under certain configurations are practically a given.

So... update the kernel?
I'm using Linux Mint 21.1 with kernel 6.5.x (which it did not come with by default), that fixed many driver issues on AM5.

All Linux Mint releases (except LMDE) are LTS, so I'm not sure what you mean with "compatibility issues".
That has always been a Linux thing in regards to new hardware and platforms, and is hardly limited to Linux Mint.

 

[Mazzspeed]

All Linux Mint releases (except LMDE) are LTS, so I'm not sure what you mean with "compatibility issues".
That has always been a Linux thing in regards to new hardware and platforms, and is hardly limited to Linux Mint.

Mint Virginia and Victoria are still using kernel 5.15. Mint Wilma is using kernel 6.8 - Strictly LTS releases are running kernel 6.5.0, and you can't be 'part LTS'.

Any distro claiming to be an LTS release, while running kernel's and libraries that differ from the LTS release schedule, have taken the first step towards the Frankenstein realm - As the LTS model was never designed/engineered around such changes, and any deviation from the LTS release schedule can ultimately result in stability/compatibility issues regarding certain configurations when drawing software from Canonical repos using apt.

So... update the kernel?

Obviously there's a reason why Mint devs choose to run such outdated kernels in relation to the Virginia and Victoria releases of Mint - Should you update the kernel, but run libraries that aren't inline with the LTS schedule 'there be dragons'.

Understand that I'm saying this as a user of KDE Neon, another distro 'marketed' as an LTS release, that isn't an LTS release - As KDE devs update libraries outside of the LTS schedule (however they do run the correct kernel), resulting in compatibility issues using software from canonical repositories at times. It pisses me off that the developers of such distro's are allowed to throw the term LTS around like Microsoft 'Limited account' marketing speak in an attempt to avoid scaring away potential users looking for the security, stability and compatibility of an LTS release while avoiding vanilla Ubuntu and everything it entails.

That has always been a Linux thing in regards to new hardware and platforms, and is hardly limited to Linux Mint.

Except it hasn't regarding strictly LTS releases.

 

[paradoxical]

f every Mac computer were to become inoperable, would the world even notice? Apple stock would go down for a day, but would it take down airports and shut down businesses? The world wouldn't blink an eye.

Thousands of major companies would simply cease to function:

Every single company that makes iOS apps
Cisco
IBM
GE
The majority of the data science field
Oracle
SAP
Google
Capital One
Concentrix
Oath

 

[uOpt]

So... update the kernel?
I'm using Linux Mint 21.1 with kernel 6.5.x (which it did not come with by default), that fixed many driver issues on AM5.

My Mint 21 runs a 6.9.9 kernel with no problems that I noticed.

 

[cpufrost]

Knowing MS, you will have to pay more to have a motherboard/system that is unlockable. Without that, you will only be able to boot Windows on it.

 

[DukenukemX]

Thousands of major companies would simply cease to function:

Every single company that makes iOS apps
Cisco
IBM
GE
The majority of the data science field
Oracle
SAP
Google
Capital One
Concentrix
Oath

And what do they use the Macs for? iOS app development? SSH into Linux servers? They wouldn't be able to do presentations for a day? All the DJ's wouldn't be able to work?

 

[LukeTbk]

This is why Pegasus hardly effects Android, but universally effects iOS even though Android devices tend to also secure from the outside in,

This sound a strange statement, do you think all the Israeli info and audio call from Hamas and others are not from android phone.

Catalan, Mexican, India, Saudi etc... case were all both Android-iOS device. And it is not something that would be possible to know (it is only possible to know when the hacking work, never if it did not)

Microsoft wants to lock down the bootloader and thinks that'll make it more like Mac. Either that or force people to use the app store like Apple does, except Apple doesn't on MacOS. Meanwhile, the reason this happened is because Crowdstrike was given low level kernel privileges that isn't normally done with other applications besides anti-virus software.

bootloader (isn't that run before the Kernel do) ? This is about the Kernel and the title of the article could have been: more like Linux, instead of Apple no ? Maybe they want, like every other OS, stopping to give others low level kernel privileges and have good API to it instead.

 

[Lakados]

And what do they use the Macs for? iOS app development? SSH into Linux servers? They wouldn't be able to do presentations for a day? All the DJ's wouldn't be able to work?

It's fun and easy to shit on Apple, but honestly, you pair an Apple product with O365 back end and you have a better and more secure Microsoft productivity workspace than if you are using Windows 10 or 11.
You get the same functionality, less than half of the security concerns, and better support options.
Leave Linux and Windows for Servers and virtual workstations, then put MacOS and iOS up front on the client side, you get less downtime, easier security options, and a cheaper ROI over 4 years which is pretty easy to get out of any Macbook, harder to do out of most PC's.

The PCs are easier to service when stuff does happen, but because you can't have employees sitting around. They can't wait for you to replace their hard drive, re-image it, and reconfigure it, you need to swap it out with one where that's already done while you conduct the repairs after the fact.
Well in that case an Apple Care + coverage on the device and a spare unit, covers that scenario for less because the Apple Care + costs less than putting a single decently paid tech on it for a single day to do the work, not even including the price of the parts.
Dell, HP, and Lenovo have started offering similar care packages to compete with Apple, but they partnered with Apple to save costs. In return, Apple gets to use them for Financing which they use on their corporate Leasing services, so in my area if I do a large bulk purchase of Apple hardware if I choose to finance it, that financing is run through Dell.

 

[philb2]

Macs are used as personal workstations, not as mission critical infrastructure. The closest to the latter that I saw is using a Mac to direct a concert.
Nobody in the greater scheme will notice if a few users are unproductive for a day or two. These hipster types who love Macs are already unproductive for 90% of the day.

OK, I am not and never was a Mac user, period. The closest I came was when I got my son an early Mac, for his personal amusement. He taught himself Hypercard. But I digress.

If every Mac stopped working, entire departments of businesses and ad agencies would be affected. And lots and lots of freelancers of all kinds Deadlines would be missed.. Some DJs couldn't do their job and there was would be disappointed clients. Again, not just a few users. And the Mac users i know are not exactly hipsters. More like Baby Boomers.

 

[philb2]

The PCs are easier to service when stuff does happen,

Agree here. Just replaced the batteries on my Lenovo laptop and my wife's Lenovo laptop. Spitball simple, as long as you have some T head wrenchs and a pry tool. So then wife's friend asked me to fix her Macbook Pro dead battery.

Watched a YouTube video. No way would I agree to do that so this friend could save a few bucks. Too many steps, too many ways to break something You have to remove many more cables and tie-down parts. The battery is in 3 (or 6) parts, which are held down by adhesive strips. You need some kind of alcohol to loosen the adhesive. WTF. and then use a big pry tool to remove all the battery parts. And you need a suction tool to remove the bottom cover. I would have to spend money on tools I don't need otherwise and hope that i don't break anything. So I said I couldn't do it. Wife's friend seemed OK with that, but she's upset at the cost of a commercial service. I refuse to be guilted out over that.

 

[paradoxical]

And what do they use the Macs for? iOS app development? SSH into Linux servers? They wouldn't be able to do presentations for a day? All the DJ's wouldn't be able to work?

One day maybe you'll land a high-paying job at a company like Cisco or IBM and find out for yourself.

 

[Mazzspeed]

It's fun and easy to shit on Apple, but honestly, you pair an Apple product with O365 back end and you have a better and more secure Microsoft productivity workspace than if you are using Windows 10 or 11.
You get the same functionality, less than half of the security concerns, and better support options.

I don't know about the same functionality part. For example, you can't run separate profiles under Outlook and OLM files are a PITA compared to a simple PST file.

 

[DukenukemX]

It's fun and easy to shit on Apple, but honestly, you pair an Apple product with O365 back end and you have a better and more secure Microsoft productivity workspace than if you are using Windows 10 or 11.

Until someone figures out how to use those unpatchable exploits that as far as I'm aware of hasn't been mitigated by Apple due to the loss of performance it would create. Meanwhile Intel keeps nerfing their CPU performance for every new exploit that's found.

Leave Linux and Windows for Servers and virtual workstations, then put MacOS and iOS up front on the client side, you get less downtime, easier security options, and a cheaper ROI over 4 years which is pretty easy to get out of any Macbook, harder to do out of most PC's.

Why MacOS over Linux? Doesn't Google use their own version of Linux to manage things? You'd think using the most secure OS which is Linux would be the best way to deal with security.

The PCs are easier to service when stuff does happen, but because you can't have employees sitting around. They can't wait for you to replace their hard drive, re-image it, and reconfigure it, you need to swap it out with one where that's already done while you conduct the repairs after the fact.

And what happens when a Mac fails and needs servicing? Assuming you can service it. You buy another device, right?

Well in that case an Apple Care + coverage on the device and a spare unit, covers that scenario for less because the Apple Care + costs less than putting a single decently paid tech on it for a single day to do the work, not even including the price of the parts.

If Crowdstrike were to corrupt a Mac drive, then how would you go about dealing with it? You're not going to wait for Apple Care to take care of it. Considering the insanity of Mac SSD's, I can't imagine this being an easy fix other than wiping and reinstall MacOS.

OK, I am not and never was a Mac user, period. The closest I came was when I got my son an early Mac, for his personal amusement. He taught himself Hypercard. But I digress.

If every Mac stopped working, entire departments of businesses and ad agencies would be affected. And lots and lots of freelancers of all kinds Deadlines would be missed.. Some DJs couldn't do their job and there was would be disappointed clients. Again, not just a few users. And the Mac users i know are not exactly hipsters. More like Baby Boomers.

Nothing compared to Windows and Linux machines just going offline.

One day maybe you'll land a high-paying job at a company like Cisco or IBM and find out for yourself.

Maybe one day you'll tell me how these companies would shut down when their Macs stop working. Again, they wouldn't be able to SSH into their really secure Linux servers.

 

[paradoxical]

Why MacOS over Linux? Doesn't Google use their own version of Linux to manage things? You'd think using the most secure OS which is Linux would be the best way to deal with security.

The fact that you are advocating for a major corporation with average users to use Linux proves you have never supported and don't understand both average users and large corporations.

And what happens when a Mac fails and needs servicing? Assuming you can service it. You buy another device, right?

Apple gives me one within the hour for the deductible on Applecare (I just go to the Apple store and get a new one). I press one button in Mosyle and the machine is back to the identical state it was before it failed.

If Crowdstrike were to corrupt a Mac drive, then how would you go about dealing with it? You're not going to wait for Apple Care to take care of it. Considering the insanity of Mac SSD's, I can't imagine this being an easy fix other than wiping and reinstall MacOS.

You just restore it? It is one click.

Nothing compared to Windows and Linux machines just going offline.

The world would break if all of ANY of those went offline.

Maybe one day you'll tell me how these companies would shut down when their Macs stop working. Again, they wouldn't be able to SSH into their really secure Linux servers.

Good luck with 70 year old Barb from HR running payroll from a linux server.

 

[Mazzspeed]

Good luck with 70 year old Barb from HR running payroll from a linux server.

What's Barb doing with full access to a Windows server desktop? The fact the server even has a desktop seems ass backwards to me.

 

[paradoxical]

What's Barb doing with full access to a Windows server desktop? The fact the server even has a desktop seems ass backwards to me.

I have no idea what you're talking about. In this scenario Barb was running payroll from her Macbook. Duke asked a very stupid question - "why would fortune 500 companies which run predominantly on Macs, like IBM, cease to function if Macs shut down?" He then intimated that there wouldn't actually be any issues, because people "just use macs to SSH into their linux servers."

I was just explaining to him that Barb from HR - who cuts the paychecks of the engineers who use linux servers - doesn't know how to spell "SSH," let alone actually do it. She processes payroll from her Macbook. And while everyone here knows Dukenukemx isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, I think even he wouldn't work for free (assuming he could figure out he wasn't being paid).

The point was that companies are complex entities composed of far more "non-engineer" or "average" workers than they are of people that build things. Therefore, if the execs, middle management, HR/Payroll, customer support, etc departments all had their Macs go offline, the entire company would be paralyzed. And if major corporations which are majority Mac - like IBM, Cisco, SAP, Capital One, etc - had that happen, the world would most certainly be negatively impacted until the machines were back up again.

 

[Lakados]

I don't know about the same functionality part. For example, you can't run separate profiles under Outlook and OLM files are a PITA compared to a simple PST file.

Don’t bother, set up each needed profile as a separate mailbox then give the needed user the various send permissions on the other mailboxes and it adds itself, or at least it’s supposed to, it currently doesn’t and you have to manually add it but I’ve been told that’s a bug and will be resolved one day soon.

 

[socK]

Don’t bother, set up each needed profile as a separate mailbox then give the needed user the various send permissions on the other mailboxes and it adds itself, or at least it’s supposed to, it currently doesn’t and you have to manually add it but I’ve been told that’s a bug and will be resolved one day soon.

This is the way for sure, much easier for both parties.

 

[philb2]

Nothing compared to Windows and Linux machines just going offline.

Sure. Bot MacOS isn't chopped liver. Saying that as a thoroughly committed Windows guy.

 

[philb2]

I was just explaining to him that Barb from HR - who cuts the paychecks of the engineers who use linux servers - doesn't know how to spell "SSH," let alone actually do it. She processes payroll from her Macbook.

Not 100% automated these days?

And while everyone here knows Dukenukemx isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, I think even he wouldn't work for free (assuming he could figure out he wasn't being paid).

If I were DukenukemX I would say that I resemble that remark.

The point was that companies are complex entities composed of far more "non-engineer" or "average" workers than they are of people that build things. Therefore, if the execs, middle management, HR/Payroll, customer support, etc departments all had their Macs go offline, the entire company would be paralyzed. And if major corporations which are majority Mac - like IBM, Cisco, SAP, Capital One, etc - had that happen, the world would most certainly be negatively impacted until the machines were back up again.

Absolutely.

EDIT:: the idea that IBM is now a major Mac shop just blows my mind. I hope even millennials are aware that IBM started the modern PC age with their PC introduction in 1981. Intel 8088 CPU and 2 floppy drives. And then developed an alternative to Windows called OS/2. All of this on Intel CPUs. Then did their own thing with Motorola PowerPC, until they stopped that.

 

[Lakados]

Until someone figures out how to use those unpatchable exploits that as far as I'm aware of hasn't been mitigated by Apple due to the loss of performance it would create. Meanwhile Intel keeps nerfing their CPU performance for every new exploit that's found.

They are easily mitigated at a software level, Cloudstrike, Sentinel One, Coro, they all cover that it’s not a problem. Cisco, PaloAlto, and Fortinet can all detect it at a network level as well. It’s really not an issue or any worse than the current Intel and AMD exploits.

Why MacOS over Linux? Doesn't Google use their own version of Linux to manage things? You'd think using the most secure OS which is Linux would be the best way to deal with security.

Google does too much snooping and Google Drive is not seamless. Furthermore, none of the Google suite holds a candle to O365, it’s not even remotely close. Google does do its own MDM solution which functions at the browser level so then you need to operate some form of LDAP server with its own user directory that you feed back to Google unless you want to have a system login and then a service login. Still, then you're going to have one hell of a time with SSO and certificate-based services you try to run. It is too much of a PITA having users need to use multiple logins, trust me, they struggle to remember one.
Additionally, Linux is a PITA to manage in a large environment with a small team, it does not have the needed support options and has a whole other set of user woes and software compatibility issues. At that point, you are either replacing your entire software stack which requires a lot of training and blah blah blah, or you are running everything server side which then means you might as well be running a thin client virtual desktop setup which means you are now spending Citrix, VMWare money and any hope of a cost savings just went out the window.

And what happens when a Mac fails and needs servicing? Assuming you can service it. You buy another device, right?

Even for devices I can service I need to have a hot swapped spare on hand, Deaktop, Laptop, AiO, hell my primary server has a sister that only exists to take VM replications so if the primary fails it spins up with less than 5 minutes of lost data between them.
Even a simple desktop should it need a replacement HDD by the time it's diagnosed, replaced, reimaged, updated, and redeployed with the needed user customizations and configurations that’s a two-day job at least. I can’t have an employee sitting around twiddling their thumbs for a day and a half while the work gets done. It’s swapped out and brought back for diagnostic and repair then it becomes the new hot spare. Apple instead has me swap it, recover from that user's backup, and then pop the unit in a box where I get it back a week later to become the new hot spare. Same difference, but instead parts and labor are already covered.

If Crowdstrike were to corrupt a Mac drive, then how would you go about dealing with it? You're not going to wait for Apple Care to take care of it. Considering the insanity of Mac SSD's, I can't imagine this being an easy fix other than wiping and reinstall MacOS.

Your options are identical to a Windows or Linux machine. Software corruption isn’t a problem, and Mac has a bootable firmware image that does provide file system access so if you just needed to delete a system file that’s doable from there. But if the whole drives file system is borked you’re looking at a backup recovery. If your implying a software update somehow physically corrupted the drive that’s a whole other ball of wax and lawyers and insurance agencies are now involved and regardless of the OS you are looking at replacement hardware.