this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
304 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

87598 readers
3658 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 147 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

Khosla had seen Microsoft’s announcement last year that it was winding down its free nonprofit licenses beginning July 2025, but, per the record, he should have still been in the clear. He renewed Canopy’s yearly license last October, and Microsoft had emailed him to confirm he would retain access until Oct. 4, 2026. Khosla had no reason to expect anything would change, and he received no additional warnings—even as Microsoft kept in regular touch about other software updates. And he later learned he wasn’t alone, when another company service representative called the very next day and told him that roughly 171,000 small nongovernmental organizations “lost everything” in their OneDrive accounts.

In a statement emailed to Slate, Microsoft wrote that the original offers were “retired to streamline our grant offerings and simplify our grant portfolio,” adding, “We strongly advised our nonprofit customers and partners to transition to a different Microsoft 365 offer for nonprofits before their renewal date to avoid disruption and data loss.”

As an IT person I can't imagine just deleting customers' data one day without keeping an archival copy. This feels like a mistake, in which case they're being dishonest in order not to admit to their mistake. And if it wasn't a mistake, it's a sign that they aren't competent at understanding their customers, making plans, or communicating. Either way, it shows Microsoft is not a company you can have confidence doing business with.

[–] greatwhitebuffalo41@slrpnk.net 50 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I just have a regular home license and one day my one drive was empty. The one drive I've pulled everything out of and after windows updates everything would be back in there again. Microsoft basically said there was nothing that could be done to recover my data. I switched to Linux that day. Like I specifically removed my files and turned off one drive in multiple occasions. And they turn it back on and move the My Documents folder back with no warning breaking folder paths for games. Such a shit company.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

I remember that happening, I think they did eventually fix that

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 week ago

Holy shit. I mean minus points for storing all your company's data in OneDrive and just kinda trusting Microsoft, but also, holy shit is that fucked up on Microsoft's part. Literally telling people "you're good till your subscription ends" and then surprising them with "jk, we deleted all your data."

And then this asinine corpo-speak response:

Microsoft wrote that the original offers were “retired to streamline our grant offerings and simplify our grant portfolio,” adding, “We strongly advised our nonprofit customers and partners to transition to a different Microsoft 365 offer for nonprofits before their renewal date to avoid disruption and data loss.”

No they fucking didn't!

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

it's a sign that they aren't competent at understanding their customers, making plans, or communicating

For me that was self-evident when they rolled out Windows 11.

I saw this on a few sysadmin posts, from what I saw and what people described I have a theory that it was an unexpected interaction.

Those with the deletion had a expiration date for the donation licenses past the July '26 deadline. That shouldn't have happened as far as I can tell from the notification email. We had some of these, but I think the difference was the presence of other licenses.

Those with only the 10 donations and none of the other free licenses, would have become unlicensed when they were removed. There is a cool off for deletions, but if the licence had the wrong expiration, then the deadline date might have been set from the original expiration. Due to the incorrect extension that date might then have been in the past. Leading to the wrong deletions.

I have no way to confirm any of that and ms are not going to admit it. I don't think it was malicious, but is still a appalling show from Microsoft.

[–] sudoshakes@reddthat.com 6 points 1 week ago

Fun story.

The licensing changed for Gates’ own Nonprofits too.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 77 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I'm increasingly convinced that "The Cloud" is just a scam. Just keep your own files.

[–] johntitor1949@lemmy.zip 37 points 1 week ago (2 children)

No, the cloud is just someone else’s computer.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They are not mutually exclusive.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] mandolrain@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DairyKing@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

~~No,~~ the cloud is just someone else’s computer.

FTFY

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I never have and never will trust "the cloud". If someone else is holding your data, it is no longer your data.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I pay for someone else to hold an encrypted backup of some data. The living data is in my server, they're just one of the backups in case there's a fire at my house or something. I pay because I expect legal liability from them to hold my data safely, no freemium shenanigans. And I encrypt because no one can be trusted not to mine my info for AI or sell my shit to a shady third party for profit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chunes@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's been happening as long as the internet has existed. Most of us learned this lesson earlier in life when we lost files to geocities/homestead/imgbucket going belly up

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Always has been. Bait and switch etc.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

For specificity, and to be fair to small-fry private cloud vendors, there’s nothing inherently scammy about offering remote IT infrastructure for rent.

But it absolutely applies to the large hyperscaler cloud providers like MS, simply because enshittification is plan A, the optimal and preferred end game for any product described as a “platform.”

Why:
Platforms rely on network effects, the standout feature of which is that user acquisition directly scales platform valuation, customer retention, and competitive advantage all at the same time.

Once that market dominance is sufficient, you can squeeze customers with relative impunity, because your original competitors either went under or are too far behind to be a threat.

The rainmaking phase of enshittification is why VCs are willing to dump so much money into bootstrapping startups (to hasten their market dominance). It’s why many products and services everyone pays for now were once sold at a loss or even offered free of charge. And it’s why shareholders will keep shares of unprofitable companies for years or even decades.

Enshittification is the ultimate payoff of the platform model/scheme and has been from the beginning.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Eh_I@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

But the cloud is buying up all the memory and storage

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 72 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Here is a list of scenarios where it's OK to trust Microslop:

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I just found out yhat you can't trust Microsoft because they're evil fucks! Pass the word!

I've been doing that for the past 35 years already.

[–] dinophile@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Almost 30 years here! I went from people around me at work knowing there were alternatives to people being shocked...SHOCKED...I could "do computers" without Windows or MacOS. What a whirlwind it's been...sigh.

[–] kalpol@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Used to be able to buy PCs running Xenix, with Lotus and vi. Who really needed anything more?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Sounds like a big painting brush toward profit and Microsoft had the usual shit communication and execution.

More to the point though, this is the fundamental lesson many people who say they went to business school or are IT experts are apparently now learning; if it's not free and open source you can't depend on it staying that way and the last 10 years has been a sprint to enshittify. Why someone in IT would base their entire storage and archive practice on the assumption a paid service or grant will remain free through grants, when there is no money to go around to pivot the org is naive at best. I see these as the same type who will rail against inequality, fascism, etc. and then be on Twitter and Facebook. The nobler aspects of man cannot coexist alongside boundless greed and fascism. Move early or be prepared to "be shocked" when structural inevitability comes.

Libre Office and countless other options are out there, just waiting to be adopted. The cells have been made very comfortable by our jailers, but the keys are right there if you want freedom.

[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Generally hasn't been IT making these decisions. Same as cloud fundamentally just meaning offsite storage someone else owns. The PR push about how it somehow is not that was/is massive.

The momentum of cross functionality is also massive. There exist many programs and websites that do not accept non-microslop files.

[–] black0ut@pawb.social 11 points 1 week ago

Management is obsessed with the cloud and "serverless", because it's cheaper short-term, and they don't have to care about eventualities like hardware breaking.

Long-term, it would be far cheaper and way more secure to host locally, especially for data storage.

But we all know long-term thinking is something that management can't do. And of course, the PR doesn't help at all.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 1 week ago

Yup, as a sr sysadmin I fought hard against moving our servers to the cloud. But the company never actually listened to IT about IT things.

[–] lemmysmash@piefed.social 30 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] InFerNo@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

This is more about cloud storage than anything else though

[–] khanh@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

so does LibreOffice bring Microsoft more users or Microsoft bring LibreOffice more users?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] percent@infosec.pub 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The real headline:

Over 170,000 Nonprofits Lost All Their Data. Is Microsoft to Blame?

Not sure if Slate is A/B testing or if OP clickbait-ified the post title

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 7 points 1 week ago

Checked the source code, looks like we're dealing with three different titles here:

<title>Microsoft made a quiet change to a popular software grant. Small nonprofits lost everything.</title>

<meta property="og:title" content="The Quiet Decision Microsoft Made That Devastated Thousands of Nonprofits" />

<h1 itemprop="headline" class="article__hed article__hed--" >Over 170,000 Nonprofits Lost All Their Data. Is Microsoft to Blame?</h1>
[–] foo@feddit.uk 4 points 1 week ago

Maybe it should read "170,000 nonprofits having to invoke their data restoration strategies and now in the market for ethical cloud providers, after Microsoft predictably lets them down".

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

I took the title lemmy suggested after I pasted the URL into the Create Post page.

[–] dastanktal@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

This is so devastating to hear about. I feel for these companies, a loss like this hits so hard and can be so, so hard to recover from.

Microsoft deserves all of the shitty PR for this shit.

This should also be a gentle lesson about not leaving all of your eggs in one basket, especially if it's a free product.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 11 points 1 week ago

You actually need to have your own servers or actively use multiple platforms as well as backup your data. No platform is forever and some are only there at a whim. Google has a bad habit of unpredictably locking up your data too.

[–] Wildone@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Clickbait title. ~~downvoted.~~

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] foo@feddit.uk 6 points 1 week ago

Microsoft did a crap thing, but regardless of the reason the data went away, their customers should all have had disaster recovery strategies and robust backups. The more precious the data, the more important it is to have robust backups.

I still feel for those affected, as I have lost data to my own mistakes in the past.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

I'll take The Noisy Decisions RMS and Linus Torvalds Made That Devastated Microsoft for all the marbles, Alex.

[–] zonico@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago

Play stupid games win stupid prices

[–] graynk@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 week ago

The Quiet Decision Microsoft Quietly Made That Quietly Devastated Thousands of Quiet Nonprofits. Quietly.

load more comments
view more: next ›