On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:37:24 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 31/07/2015 09:56 AM, scott wrote:
>>> I've read scuttlebutt about M$ moving Windows to a SaaS model, but I
>>> fail to understand how this could possibly work.
>>
>> Locally you'd have an OS that was stripped down to just run Remote
>> Desktop (or equivalent) and interface with your hardware. When you
>> logged on it would start a remote desktop session with an MS VM
>> somewhere. *Assuming internet speeds were fast enough* you wouldn't
>> notice the difference to running full windows locally.
> 
> The more I look at the IT world, the more cyclic it seems to be.

Yep, I've observed this for over 30 years myself.

>> The benefits are obvious (a machine that has all your files and looks
>> the same no matter where you log on, an almost limitless supply of CPU
>> power and RAM if you wanted to do CPU intenstive tasks, automatic
>> backups for everyone, etc)
> 
> I think you mean "we can give you less and less CPU and RAM while still
> charging the same amount of money for it, so you will continually have
> to give us more money or suffer horrendously unusable system response".
> 
> And then of course, you have the problem that each morning, you log into
> your desktop, and there's a 50% probability that the software will have
> changed, and you can't prevent it changing. Already we see every time
> Facebook changes the colour of a button, somebody creates a page
> entitled "if one million users Like this page, Facebook will turn the
> button colour back to how it was before". [Erm, no they won't honey.]
> Imagine if every day, all your software could be deleted and replaced
> with something else that you didn't ask for or want.
> 
> To say nothing of the privacy and confidentiality issues of having
> Microsoft have access to every file you ever create. (I doubt too many
> corporate types would like having their propriety data on a hostile 3rd
> party server.)

Surprisingly, a lot of companies are moving to SaaS solutions for a lot 
of things.  I'm constantly amazed at the new customers my employer brings 
in to help secure their SaaS infrastructures using identity as the 
"border".

One of the larger challenges in modern IT is that the old paradigm of 
securing everything with a firewall is done.  The internal network isn't 
a trusted network these days, even if you use no SaaS solutions.  Look at 
Sony.  Look at Target.  Look at any major company that has been hacked in 
the past 5 years - all of them trusted their internal networks, and it 
cost them huge.

The "firewall" concept is flawed, and these days, proper security is 
identity-enabled and tied to devices and users rather than a network.

The other surprising thing is that as the "Internet of Things" takes off, 
these "things" are not being designed with security in mind - security is 
being bolted on after the fact.

>> Their big problem will be the medium-large corporations that take
>> months, if not years to test and roll out major software updates. There
>> is no way they would accept the possibility of one day their entire
>> company coming to a halt with millions of pounds lost due to an MS
>> "update" that has broken something somewhere within their business.
>> Also a lot of systems are not connected to the internet for various
>> reasons, how would they work?
> 
> They also have a problem with SOHO setups where people wouldn't know
> what "computer security" is if it hit them in the face.
> 
> Why no, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask?

Actually, the IDaaS market in the SME space is going to be a very bloody 
battle between Microsoft and Google.  There's really no reason for anyone 
else to even play in that market.  Larger enterprises will tend to look 
elsewhere (though there are a number of > 10,000 user companies that use 
Google, apparently).

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message