Actually, I would recommend against utilizing the built in windows functionality for software deployments. It's severely limited in what it can do, and as you mentioned, it's limited only to msis.
Yet that's not how it works in a corporate environment UNLESS you are fairly high up in the food chain. High enough to dictate bad policy and get away with it at any rate. The simple fact of the matter is that the average user can not be trusted to keep their personal computer clean and free of virus and warez. They'll bring in software from home to install, putting the entire company at risk of an audit. Only by locking the workstations down can liability be minimized. Had I my way, IT wouldn't even be admins, and the admin account would be audited for abuse.
I can go in to WSUS and update IE with a couple clicks. I can go into GPMC and push out new settings with a few clicks. I can do both in about a minute.
Given your best case scenario of 15 minutes, that's quite a bit of extra time. For what?
And let's not forget that more moving parts == more errors.
So tell me, how might I justify such a choice to management? Why would I?
Yes, thank you, I know about those methods. Are they as simple as IE updates? Not anywhere close to being as simple. Given the number of users I maintain, it's simply not practical to have to hand-hold some random application when a better alternative exists.
And yes, I just called IE better than firefox. It is, in this setting. It's easier to install updates, it's easier to configure. And when we're talking about a large number of workstations, easy translates into less time necessary to achieve the same function.
I can't manage it in a corporate/enterprise environment. Push out updates? Not as a limited user. Push out configuration? Not simply. Push out plugins, or plugin updates? Not simple.
That, more than anything else, will keep firefox out of the enterprise/corporate markets. If that even matters to them, seeing how this is still an issue.
Of interest is that it doesn't say "God", or make any specific reference to the christian god. In fact, separating it out in such a manner would seem to indicate there is a separate entity, at least in the minds of the framers.
Interesting things pop up when you listen objectively.
While I agree about Child's behavior, the specifics of the case are interesting. If he was fired and THEN asked for the passwords, there were fuck ups all up and down the chain of command.
Look at this way; it's obvious that he couldn't be trusted. I'm going to go ahead and guess that much was obvious to anyone working with him. Therefore, it was "management's" responsibility to check up on him and not leave him unsupervised ( or better; not put him in the position of power he was put in ). Properly supervised, he never would have been able to cause as much damage as he did.
It's hard to blame the peon here; yes he was an asshat, but the City failed to protect itself from the damage one peon could do. And ultimately, that's their responsibility.
If anything, this is a great example of why they shouldn't be unionized. Yes, they got fired. And yes, there appears to be some weird shit going on with it. What might have happened with a union though?
Management would have made their lives hell until they quit. Nothing verifiable, certainly, but little things here and there until the developers left on their own.
Compare that to now, and you'll see that the workers actually experience less stress this way than if they were unionized.
The answer is never "unions!"; very often it's the problem.
The school district is not the govnernment; I hate to rain on that particular bit of sensationalism.
Not that I think the government entities aren't wetting themselves as such concepts, but let's not make up stories about an already outrageous story.
The trick about blame is this; they could very well blame IT and safe "face" as the district...except they used evidence obtained in such a manner for discipline proceedings. That's the kicker; it shows that they not only knew about what was going on but accepted it as normal business.
But yes, let's not all run around screaming 'government' unless it actually applies please. It makes those of us with legitimate concerns about government violations of the 4th look like loons.
Fuzzy terms are fuzzy for a reason. "high quality of life", for example, means different things to different people. Some people may be OK with a company targeting ads at them ( which, let's admit, is a pretty benign practice in and of itself ).
In that regard, "quality of life" isn't effected. Further, many of these services allow cross-referencing of information in order to better provide service for the target ( granted, as a side effect ). This would actually enhance "quality of life".
For the sake of argument, let's ignore what "high quality of life" might mean to a cancer patient or someone in similar situations.
So no, privacy is not "essential" for a "high quality of life". It's nice to those of us who want it, and can negatively impact our quality of life, but it's not universal.
The constitution is also pretty big on personal liberties. While I'm not fully versed on patent law, and thus wouldn't want to offer a firm opinion on the topic, my initial bias is to protect the idea of personal property and ownership over the government determining what is fair use of my idea.
To be fair, if I have a truly significant patent ( that is; it's a really unique idea ), why shouldn't I be able to charge whatever I want for it? Or refuse to license it at all? It's mine, after all.
The difference between this and your loaf of bread is this; If safeway determined cost by the amount the end user has, I would simply shop somewhere else. Bread is not a limited supply commodity, like a good patent is. If supplies were limited, and I held the patent on bread then I'd be well within my rights to charge whatever I felt like to whomever I chose.
Now, is that good business sense? Probably not, as if I'm a big enough dick about the cost people will find a way around my patent OR decide they just don't need it. That's not in my best interests, as the patent holder. Hence, the market corrects itself.
I'm probably alone in this, but if the patents were of significant value, I wouldn't have a problem with the "trolls".
The problem is that they are not of significant value. Usually, they are trivial extensions of existing technology which are inevitable. Thus, they are worthless to exploit directly, but if you wait for someone else to exploit it you can derive more value from them. That's the problem that needs to be fixed.
I imagine his chute will be specialized to allow for variable resistance. This does make the jump much more dangerous, however. Even with a fail safe, his chute will likely deploy with the resistance to the minimum, so he'll come in pretty fast.
The other perspective is that we are handing off critical and complex systems to those more better able to handle them due to experience and training. Further, as any government employee will tell you, you can't rely on the politicians to understand why IT needs as much money as we do. They often fail to understand that if they want x, they need to pay y. By outsourcing the operation, the costs are better controlled ( something the bean counters love ), and interruption to the service is less likely.
Not that the OP doesn't have a good point, he does. But it really does make more sense to let specialized companies handle the complex operations.
We have single purpose machines ( kiosk ). Their primary function is to go to a specific website and use it's functionality. These machines will have multiple users. These users are...."gifted". They like to set everything to 30pt font, high contrast. Then, they call me because they can't read what's on the screen.
Oh, and these are police officers. So they'll change the font to wingdings or something, as a prank to the next shift. So come 2 in the morning, I'm getting a phone call because their critical website is "down" and they are on a high speed chase and need access to that information.
Yes. I would very much like to lock down colors in the browser. And everything else, I might add.
The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.
I dig what they are trying to say, I really do. But it's nothing new, and certainly nothing beyond what we already have.
Given the vast majority of window installations out there, my statement is still a valid complaint.
Look, I use OSS where and when I can; I think it performs better than the closed source, paid for, solutions. However, for day to day desktop usage it's simply not a feasible replacement, and won't be for the foreseeable future.
It's not about me finding a way to do it. I actually know of a couple ways to do what I am after. The problem is they are hacks and are ill behaved. Not good characteristics for large scale deployments in a windows environment.
It comes down to cost-vs-benefit. Managing IE is far easier in a corporate environment than managing firefox, and it can be made relatively secure. How might one argue for the deployment of firefox in this situation? I'll save you the trouble; you can't.
If FF had decent network management tools, I'd have jumped ship in a heart beat. As it is, it is difficult to manage and keep up to date. Neither is good for security.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I would recommend against utilizing the built in windows functionality for software deployments. It's severely limited in what it can do, and as you mentioned, it's limited only to msis.
Instead, I highly recommend WPKG.
Yet that's not how it works in a corporate environment UNLESS you are fairly high up in the food chain. High enough to dictate bad policy and get away with it at any rate. The simple fact of the matter is that the average user can not be trusted to keep their personal computer clean and free of virus and warez. They'll bring in software from home to install, putting the entire company at risk of an audit. Only by locking the workstations down can liability be minimized. Had I my way, IT wouldn't even be admins, and the admin account would be audited for abuse.
I can go in to WSUS and update IE with a couple clicks. I can go into GPMC and push out new settings with a few clicks. I can do both in about a minute.
Given your best case scenario of 15 minutes, that's quite a bit of extra time. For what?
And let's not forget that more moving parts == more errors.
So tell me, how might I justify such a choice to management? Why would I?
Yes, thank you, I know about those methods. Are they as simple as IE updates? Not anywhere close to being as simple. Given the number of users I maintain, it's simply not practical to have to hand-hold some random application when a better alternative exists.
And yes, I just called IE better than firefox. It is, in this setting. It's easier to install updates, it's easier to configure. And when we're talking about a large number of workstations, easy translates into less time necessary to achieve the same function.
I can't manage it in a corporate/enterprise environment. Push out updates? Not as a limited user. Push out configuration? Not simply. Push out plugins, or plugin updates? Not simple.
That, more than anything else, will keep firefox out of the enterprise/corporate markets. If that even matters to them, seeing how this is still an issue.
Which just proves there are morons on both sides of the argument. Not particularly surprising, that.
Jennifer Aniston AND Sandra Bullock
That works better for me.
Of interest is that it doesn't say "God", or make any specific reference to the christian god. In fact, separating it out in such a manner would seem to indicate there is a separate entity, at least in the minds of the framers.
Interesting things pop up when you listen objectively.
While I agree about Child's behavior, the specifics of the case are interesting. If he was fired and THEN asked for the passwords, there were fuck ups all up and down the chain of command.
Look at this way; it's obvious that he couldn't be trusted. I'm going to go ahead and guess that much was obvious to anyone working with him. Therefore, it was "management's" responsibility to check up on him and not leave him unsupervised ( or better; not put him in the position of power he was put in ). Properly supervised, he never would have been able to cause as much damage as he did.
It's hard to blame the peon here; yes he was an asshat, but the City failed to protect itself from the damage one peon could do. And ultimately, that's their responsibility.
If anything, this is a great example of why they shouldn't be unionized. Yes, they got fired. And yes, there appears to be some weird shit going on with it. What might have happened with a union though?
Management would have made their lives hell until they quit. Nothing verifiable, certainly, but little things here and there until the developers left on their own.
Compare that to now, and you'll see that the workers actually experience less stress this way than if they were unionized.
The answer is never "unions!"; very often it's the problem.
It is necessary to ask, given the...odd...arguments I've seen flying around about 7/vista.
There are plenty of legitimate arguments against 7/vista, but I've seen some truly inventive arguments.
Well that's certainly an interesting comparison. World of Warcraft is an online game; the game in question is an offline game.
It's equally ridiculous to claim that because offline games work so well, it's proof that MMORP game customers would be fine with it.
The school district is not the govnernment; I hate to rain on that particular bit of sensationalism.
Not that I think the government entities aren't wetting themselves as such concepts, but let's not make up stories about an already outrageous story.
The trick about blame is this; they could very well blame IT and safe "face" as the district...except they used evidence obtained in such a manner for discipline proceedings. That's the kicker; it shows that they not only knew about what was going on but accepted it as normal business.
But yes, let's not all run around screaming 'government' unless it actually applies please. It makes those of us with legitimate concerns about government violations of the 4th look like loons.
That's a joke, right? You are kidding, aren't you?
They feel the need to screw their customers, and I feel the need not to buy their products.
Shine on, Sony. Shine on.
Fuzzy terms are fuzzy for a reason. "high quality of life", for example, means different things to different people. Some people may be OK with a company targeting ads at them ( which, let's admit, is a pretty benign practice in and of itself ).
In that regard, "quality of life" isn't effected. Further, many of these services allow cross-referencing of information in order to better provide service for the target ( granted, as a side effect ). This would actually enhance "quality of life".
For the sake of argument, let's ignore what "high quality of life" might mean to a cancer patient or someone in similar situations.
So no, privacy is not "essential" for a "high quality of life". It's nice to those of us who want it, and can negatively impact our quality of life, but it's not universal.
The constitution is also pretty big on personal liberties. While I'm not fully versed on patent law, and thus wouldn't want to offer a firm opinion on the topic, my initial bias is to protect the idea of personal property and ownership over the government determining what is fair use of my idea.
To be fair, if I have a truly significant patent ( that is; it's a really unique idea ), why shouldn't I be able to charge whatever I want for it? Or refuse to license it at all? It's mine, after all.
The difference between this and your loaf of bread is this; If safeway determined cost by the amount the end user has, I would simply shop somewhere else. Bread is not a limited supply commodity, like a good patent is. If supplies were limited, and I held the patent on bread then I'd be well within my rights to charge whatever I felt like to whomever I chose.
Now, is that good business sense? Probably not, as if I'm a big enough dick about the cost people will find a way around my patent OR decide they just don't need it. That's not in my best interests, as the patent holder. Hence, the market corrects itself.
I'm probably alone in this, but if the patents were of significant value, I wouldn't have a problem with the "trolls".
The problem is that they are not of significant value. Usually, they are trivial extensions of existing technology which are inevitable. Thus, they are worthless to exploit directly, but if you wait for someone else to exploit it you can derive more value from them. That's the problem that needs to be fixed.
I imagine his chute will be specialized to allow for variable resistance. This does make the jump much more dangerous, however. Even with a fail safe, his chute will likely deploy with the resistance to the minimum, so he'll come in pretty fast.
I don't really know, I'm just guessing mostly.
The other perspective is that we are handing off critical and complex systems to those more better able to handle them due to experience and training. Further, as any government employee will tell you, you can't rely on the politicians to understand why IT needs as much money as we do. They often fail to understand that if they want x, they need to pay y. By outsourcing the operation, the costs are better controlled ( something the bean counters love ), and interruption to the service is less likely.
Not that the OP doesn't have a good point, he does. But it really does make more sense to let specialized companies handle the complex operations.
We have single purpose machines ( kiosk ). Their primary function is to go to a specific website and use it's functionality. These machines will have multiple users. These users are...."gifted". They like to set everything to 30pt font, high contrast. Then, they call me because they can't read what's on the screen.
Oh, and these are police officers. So they'll change the font to wingdings or something, as a prank to the next shift. So come 2 in the morning, I'm getting a phone call because their critical website is "down" and they are on a high speed chase and need access to that information.
Yes. I would very much like to lock down colors in the browser. And everything else, I might add.
The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.
I dig what they are trying to say, I really do. But it's nothing new, and certainly nothing beyond what we already have.
Given the vast majority of window installations out there, my statement is still a valid complaint.
Look, I use OSS where and when I can; I think it performs better than the closed source, paid for, solutions. However, for day to day desktop usage it's simply not a feasible replacement, and won't be for the foreseeable future.
It's not about me finding a way to do it. I actually know of a couple ways to do what I am after. The problem is they are hacks and are ill behaved. Not good characteristics for large scale deployments in a windows environment.
It comes down to cost-vs-benefit. Managing IE is far easier in a corporate environment than managing firefox, and it can be made relatively secure. How might one argue for the deployment of firefox in this situation? I'll save you the trouble; you can't.
If FF had decent network management tools, I'd have jumped ship in a heart beat. As it is, it is difficult to manage and keep up to date. Neither is good for security.