I've had this happen as well, although under somewhat different circumstances. I've always believed it to be windows doing something funky with the processor; somehow winding it down a bit. I know current processors are capable of this, so I always suspected it was windows doing something like that for some unknown reason.
I have worked with windows desktops, managing them using alternative technology ( both samba and edirectory ), and let me give you the benefit of my experience; stick with AD. What I have learned is that you should use the vendor's own technology to manage their desktops, it just makes sense. Then you have to look at the long term support of such a setup, and you start to get an idea about how hard it would be to support a non-MS architecture.
Oh, and I'm hoping you really aren't hosting two domains on two servers; that's a horrible setup, you are asking for a catastrophic failure. Each domain needs 3 DCs ( and each DC hosting a GC ).
As much as I'd like to push out firefox for my users, I have many users in a domain environment with mapped applications directory; firefox is simply unmanageable in this environment.
Of all the improvements they are making in firefox, they are ignoring a potentially very large audience by not including some way to manage the browser in a corporate environment.
Admin know thy user. My users don't give a rat's ass about the latest and greatest. They do care about hiding their pron and gambling habits from the IT division.
Tor doesn't work on a network where the admin blocks all access out. Like any sane admin would do.
If your workplace has you going through a proxy, no amount of stealth in the browser is going to help.
I have had a ton of people requesting I install Chrome for them ( which violates policy anyway ) because they mistakenly think that the privacy feature will hide their browsing habits from the logs.
Oh, they try to be sneaky about it, sure. But that's what their after. I have half a mind to install it for them, then watch the logs to see what they don't want me to know about.
Hate to break it to ya, but economics is always political. I don't care what magical fairy form of government you try to whip up, it comes down to politicians controlling the money.
No, I don't want version control software. I use version control software for my source code, it serves an entirely different purpose than what I have in mind.
My users, and users in general, don't know how to use version control software. Training would be a pain when their tech level means they forget how to login, randomly.
A versioning file system is exactly the right solution for this environment. Further, we already have the concepts and solutions well developed individually. We'd only need to pull them together in to a file system.
Create a file. Modify and save the file. On save, the file system does a diff, stores it with a time stamp.
Of course this type of file system isn't exactly the most useful when dealing with large files, or/var, or in a variety of other circumstances, but it's dead useful when considering normal user data.
I would like transparent, administrator controlled, versioning. Modified a word document and saved it in place? root can go back and get the old version ( and, alternatively, the user can. root could disable this functionality ).
The pieces are in place, it's doable, just someone needs to program it.
they hate someone coming up with a file format that is better than theirs.
It's not about what's better or worse, in this or technology in general. Instead, MS hates it when someone other than they come up with a standard that gets more widespread adoption than their own.
Or something more sinister? Did they make a blackhole? Are they desperately trying to contain it before it destroys the earth?
Although really, if my ST:NG watching is any indication, coolant leaks are bad mojo in and of themselves. And that would explain why I was told to put on a red shirt this morning.
Not an exact comparison, I grant you, although in reality that's all google is doing too; the end user is simply accepting the default behavior of "BLOCK".
While phishing is a problem, giving one company the power to block any site that it wishes at the browser level never seemed like a good idea
Actually, giving a single company this kind of authority is usually not a bad idea. Spamhaus and email, for example.
The issue is about trust. Even with this goofup, I trust google ( although their response to this could change that ). Hell, I trust MS here too, to a limited extent.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had this happen as well, although under somewhat different circumstances. I've always believed it to be windows doing something funky with the processor; somehow winding it down a bit. I know current processors are capable of this, so I always suspected it was windows doing something like that for some unknown reason.
Stick with AD.
I have worked with windows desktops, managing them using alternative technology ( both samba and edirectory ), and let me give you the benefit of my experience; stick with AD. What I have learned is that you should use the vendor's own technology to manage their desktops, it just makes sense. Then you have to look at the long term support of such a setup, and you start to get an idea about how hard it would be to support a non-MS architecture.
Oh, and I'm hoping you really aren't hosting two domains on two servers; that's a horrible setup, you are asking for a catastrophic failure. Each domain needs 3 DCs ( and each DC hosting a GC ).
And how would you suggest I do that? Can I push out the install unattended?
Nope.
Can I push out default settings, on a per user or group basis?
Nope.
Can I later change those settings and push out new ones?
Nope.
As much as I'd like to push out firefox for my users, I have many users in a domain environment with mapped applications directory; firefox is simply unmanageable in this environment.
Of all the improvements they are making in firefox, they are ignoring a potentially very large audience by not including some way to manage the browser in a corporate environment.
This were actually another Mojave experiment prank, played on ZDnet?
Depends. I'd have to look into it. We block octet byte streams going through the proxy, so maybe.
I appreciate the thought, but it's from bitter experience that we do this, not because we're especially clever.
Except we operate https on a white list basis.
*shrug* We're kind of dicks.
Admin know thy user. My users don't give a rat's ass about the latest and greatest. They do care about hiding their pron and gambling habits from the IT division.
Tor doesn't work on a network where the admin blocks all access out. Like any sane admin would do.
Maybe. But if you were on my network, you wouldn't have any connectivity out except through the proxy.
If your workplace has you going through a proxy, no amount of stealth in the browser is going to help.
I have had a ton of people requesting I install Chrome for them ( which violates policy anyway ) because they mistakenly think that the privacy feature will hide their browsing habits from the logs.
Oh, they try to be sneaky about it, sure. But that's what their after. I have half a mind to install it for them, then watch the logs to see what they don't want me to know about.
I mean, I know the economy is hard on everyone right now, but you'd think he'd have waited until he could see the entire movie.
Quick, let's raise a collection so he can review the entire thing!
Hate to break it to ya, but economics is always political. I don't care what magical fairy form of government you try to whip up, it comes down to politicians controlling the money.
Which actually doesn't help the youtube problem. Squid can't cache youtube videos. You'd think it'd be able to, I would expect it to, but it doesn't.
No, I don't want version control software. I use version control software for my source code, it serves an entirely different purpose than what I have in mind.
My users, and users in general, don't know how to use version control software. Training would be a pain when their tech level means they forget how to login, randomly.
A versioning file system is exactly the right solution for this environment. Further, we already have the concepts and solutions well developed individually. We'd only need to pull them together in to a file system.
Create a file. Modify and save the file. On save, the file system does a diff, stores it with a time stamp.
Of course this type of file system isn't exactly the most useful when dealing with large files, or /var, or in a variety of other circumstances, but it's dead useful when considering normal user data.
That leads to space-bloat.
I have the space with which to bloat, on both my immediate storage system as well as my backups.
Besides, it wouldn't need to store much, possibly just a diff and a timestamp.
I would definitely contribute to any effort out there that I felt would bring this to linux.
Good point about /var. But the important thing is, user data is recoverable if necessary.
And I would write it, except I suck at coding. :(
I would like transparent, administrator controlled, versioning. Modified a word document and saved it in place? root can go back and get the old version ( and, alternatively, the user can. root could disable this functionality ).
The pieces are in place, it's doable, just someone needs to program it.
they hate someone coming up with a file format that is better than theirs.
It's not about what's better or worse, in this or technology in general. Instead, MS hates it when someone other than they come up with a standard that gets more widespread adoption than their own.
Small but very important distinction.
You still get group policies assigned, whether you are in a domain or not.
So yes. You need the group policy service.
Or something more sinister? Did they make a blackhole? Are they desperately trying to contain it before it destroys the earth?
Although really, if my ST:NG watching is any indication, coolant leaks are bad mojo in and of themselves. And that would explain why I was told to put on a red shirt this morning.
Not an exact comparison, I grant you, although in reality that's all google is doing too; the end user is simply accepting the default behavior of "BLOCK".
While phishing is a problem, giving one company the power to block any site that it wishes at the browser level never seemed like a good idea
Actually, giving a single company this kind of authority is usually not a bad idea. Spamhaus and email, for example.
The issue is about trust. Even with this goofup, I trust google ( although their response to this could change that ). Hell, I trust MS here too, to a limited extent.
How about I don't take my dog to the vet for the swabbing?
I'm no criminal mastermind, but it just might work!