201–210 of 251 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither can Linux or OS X.
Linux goes a long way towards updating while running. In fact, in my seven years of administering Linux – and my distro updates once a week – I never had to reboot to continue an update. Every update - during and after - I could continue using my system exactly as I was using it before. Enterprise Linux also has the feature of updating the kernel on-the-fly. The infrastructure for it has been open-source, and anyone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Too many users changed a setting you don't agree with? Just block access to that setting or call it something else to confuse enough people to the point that the numbers are "good enough" for management. Ergh, agreed. Ever try to change the default search engine in Edge to something other than Bing? Hoops galore.
How is it a hoop to go to https://www.google.com and click your mouse a few times? You make it sound like a chore!
Also, that process is not immediately obvious and certainly not intuitive. I can definitely imagine many people just giving up and using Bing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine the OS would be open-source, which would probably make it more trustworthy than Windows. Not saying it'd be completely trustworthy, however...
But at the end of the day, chrome OS or whatever would be a desktop equivalent would just be another flavor of linux. Why chose a distribution managed by a known privacy "predator" over any other distribution then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither can Linux or OS X.
Linux goes a long way towards updating while running. In fact, in my seven years of administering Linux – and my distro updates once a week – I never had to reboot to continue an update. Every update - during and after - I could continue using my system exactly as I was using it before. Enterprise Linux also has the feature of updating the kernel on-the-fly. The infrastructure for it has been open-source, and anyone…
In fact, with Nano server, Microsoft is trying to go that direction too -- the less you have running, the easier to avoid reboots.
But the real solution is trying to be reboot-tolerant by having a slight bit of redundancy, I would think. Uptime matters more for pet/snowflake servers than for cattle....
If Microsoft wants SMBs to use Enterprise then make the Enterprise edition more easily available to SMBs, don't try to force them to move to it by making petty little changes to make their life more difficult. I can go on the Google Apps website right now and buy myself seats with a few clicks and a few minutes. If I want to buy Windows Enterprise licenses it will take weeks, cost an unclear amount (at the onset), an…
> Where is the Windows version of Office 365? Why can't I just pay a per user fee and get one Windows Enterprise key, the CAL, and Azure-based AD? It used to be an optional tier of Windows Intune (now known as Microsoft Intune), which they have since killed (stupid decision, IMO). However, you can just directly join a Windows 10 (Pro?) system to Azure AD, Enterprise is only necessary for things like DirectRoute, you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When put together it really does work beautifully. Except for the forced reboots because their OS still can't completely update itself at run time.
Neither can Linux or OS X.
At home I run Arch Linux, and I do updates almost every day. Usually my uptime can easily be measured in weeks.
At work I have Windows 7 on my laptop. I have to restart my laptop twice a week at a minimum, because every tiny fucking update requires a restart. And if I don't then it nags like a little bitch every 2-4 hours and breaks my concentration. And if you take too long then it forces the update and your work is lost. I hate having to close all my apps every 2 days and wait for ages while it restarts. From a user's perspective, Windows is the shittiest desktop experience available in a corporate environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not advocating. I am pointing out that user control is fundamentally anti-security. Bad security may very well be worth the tradeoff if you value other things like freedom, fashion, backwards compatibility, fewer restarts, price, etc.
User control is, by definition, security. The goal of security is to keep control in the hands of the owner. To remove control in the name of security is at best deceptive and self-defeating.
I want devices that I, the owner, control, whether I'm a small business or enterprise or individual. This is important for many reasons, from security to freedom-to-tinker to using the device I own in the way I want. It was once an accepted standard in IT. Now, can anyone name a current handheld or desktop system that provides end-user control? If you don't think security, including privacy, is important, consider wh…
>> It was once an accepted standard in IT. That's funny because it's the folks in IT that always want to limit users freedom. But when someone even higher up the chain takes control they get upset about it ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most things that were "once an accepted standard in IT" are horribly insecure. The end user wanting a system he/she controls is very much one of them. Microsoft taking away control from users, especially when it came to forcing them to take updates, is probably the biggest change they could possibly have made to improve the overall security of the internet.
> Microsoft taking away control from users, especially when it came to forcing them to take updates, is probably the biggest change they could possibly have made to improve the overall security of the internet. Shouldn't the end user get to decide for themselves whether Microsoft can control the computer the user paid for, that sits in their home or office, and that contains their private and otherwise confidential i…
> Shouldn't the end user get to decide for themselves.
Not for the typical user who is not working in IT. None of my friends or relatives want to decide themselves about how their computer works. They just want their system to work and let them do their daily activities. Most of them use phones and tablets for much of their online stuff and they want the system to take care of itself.
Personally, I want to have full control of my system. But as the default sysadmin for my family and extended family, I dont have the time to maintain all those PCs, phones and tablets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, that is common with many large companies, including Microsoft. I've practically begged them to take my money but sometimes nobody seems to know how to do it.
In the past I've heard that if you need an XP license and Microsoft won't sell one, installed a pirated version of XP and then let it do it's genuine windows check, which will fail. Right after it fails, you are given a way to actually pay for a license. I'm guessing this no longer works, but it did for a while.
Nobody knows what Microsoft wants to do, they have Acquired Nokia but nothing goes well.