Yeah, i worked briefly at multinational japanese motor company and this was their logic. I was hired as a software developer contractor and HQ had rules stating, no open source software, no free software and the one that puzzled me the most no in house executables (WHY THE FUCK DID THEY HIRE ME?)
Comment on Anon witnesses excellent security
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
It’s “more secure” because there’s a specific company to blame when it goes wrong.
drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 1 year ago
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 1 year ago
How were you supposed to test your software if you weren’t allowed to create an executable?
drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 1 year ago
insert thats the neat part meme
Eventually it was decided I would write Javascript on a web page I made. Skills I never declaired having I told them I was a java dev.
drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
So they essentially hired you for no reason and then had to come up with something for you to do?
shalafi@lemmy.world 1 year ago
My old boss called that “one neck to choke”.
Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 year ago
That would make some sense if the company was purchasing a solution, not a tool. Or a contract/SaaS model or something. Instead, it’s like banning known screwdriver brands and expecting people to still have no problem loosening and tightening screws…
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 1 year ago
Sure but what if they have “we can at best refund you, no more liability from us” in the EULA?
DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Security through liability
Landless2029@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The bigger you get the more this is a thing actually.