by doctorshady on 9/5/24, 4:13 AM with 21 comments
by autoexec on 9/5/24, 5:37 AM
If AT&T's software support contracts can put critical government services and national security at risk then either the government needs to abandon its use of AT&T as soon as possible to prevent that possibility, or if that is impossible, then AT&T is itself a risk to national security and they should be taken over by the government and operated as the critical government service that it is.
by mjevans on 9/5/24, 5:23 AM
by tonetegeatinst on 9/5/24, 5:31 AM
Iv used proxmox way more than VMware so I might be hazy on the details of what I remember.
Proxmox, I wish had a desktop application for doing what the web browser UI does but is more clean like the workstations and iirc vsphere application.
Might be mixing some names up cuz its been a while since iv used anything other that workstation on uni's labs.
by prirun on 9/5/24, 12:56 PM
> AT&T is exercising that option for at least one more year
> it would “take years” for AT&T to “devise alternative solutions” to its reliance on VMware.
If it will "take years", then it seems like a last-minute 1-year extension is pointless, other than saving AT&T some licensing fees, which is all this is really about IMO.
by starspangled on 9/5/24, 5:39 AM
I find it extremely hard to have any sympathy for AT&T over "vendor lock-in" (aka signing short-term contracts for a single-source products and making their business critically depend on it).
Don't view this through the lens of the common person or small business who absolutely do need particular protections and consideration under the law. That's because people have an extreme disadvantage in negotiating power in many markets, and don't have millions of dollars to spend on lawyers and analysts.
by chris_wot on 9/5/24, 5:23 AM
by shiroiushi on 9/5/24, 5:01 AM