Except that it's not your system. They own it, not you. In our environment, Group Policy would just undo every change you just made because it's our computer and not yours.
Does Uber verify that drivers actually know the area in which they service? For example in New Zealand (where Uber does operate!) drivers would be legally required to hold a P (passenger) endorsement on their license, and the transport agency requires that drivers demonstrate area knowledge to get a P endorsement (so that they can prove that they aren't going to rip passengers off by going the wrong route).
When the owner (the company owning and managing them, and employing said end user) decides they want to? No more justification needed.
Seriously though, this is intended for use in network environments with things like file servers and backups as well - if you're storing stuff on the local computer, you are doing it wrong (and the fact that you can means your administrators are doing it wrong too).
Oh, fucking bullshit. You can destroy a network just as easily with Puppet or any other Linux deployment toolkit in the hands of someone who isn't careful. You fucking zealots make it hard to actually want anything to do with anything non-Microsoft you know.
That's a dumb idea. Removing centralised management and making life harder is NOT the solution to careless administrators. The solution is not having careless administrators.
No, it's not. It's a huge vulnerability in large enterprise organisations that rely heavily on automated software deployment packages like SCCM in the hands of untrained or careless administrators.
Bullshit any of the blame should be laid on the management software. Centralised administration systems are not tools for people who don't know what they're doing. They're for administrators who know what they're doing and the consequences of their actions. There's no deficiencies in a piece of software that does exactly what you tell it to do, that's just you zealots lambasting it "cause Microsoft".
You could just as easily fuck up a network of systems with puppet or rsync.
You're not meant to run ADSI Edit without a very, very, good reason. If you do it without a very, very, good reason you are simply asking for a cataclysm.
It's an automated zero-touch deployment mechanism, intended to be run on hardware owned by the organisation operating the server. It is neither incompetence nor arrogance.
People make mistakes, and in this case the software is at least partially responsible. The SCCM server should have aborted during the preflight checks when it realized it was going to take itself out in the process.
Absolutely, 100% wrong. If you target an advertisement at "All Systems", or a collection containing the SCCM server, you are explicitly saying you want that advertisement to apply to the SCCM server as well. In this case, it sounds like the advertisement - OF A TASK SEQUENCE - was targeted at "All Systems", an explicit statement that you want the advertisement to target, you know, "All Systems". Since the Agent Host does more than just task sequences, it absolutely should not automatically not do anything on the Site Systems, because it also handles tasks like patching, application/package deployment, compliance evaluation, etc.
No, if you were to foolishly target the OSD advertisement to "All Systems", the CM agent on the server would happily start the task sequence on itself. On the plus side, once the WDS servers with the boot.wim file are offline, the rest of the fleet would cease reimaging as they would not be able to get the boot image from the TFTP server.
Unless they advertised the task sequence to the unknown computers collection, no policies would have been available to any non-managed computers that joined the network, so they wouldn't have done anything.
And your attitude is exemplary of why everyone else in the world largely dislike United States travellers, who are largely considered to be loud-mouthed bigots - a belief largely confirmed by your pithy outburst.
Except that Google should be found guilty, for the same reasons. Just because you don't like Microsoft and you do like Google, that's no excuse to hold them to different standards of behaviour.
And yet Microsoft isn't allowed to tell manufacturers that they can't call a computer a Windows PC if they set Yahoo!Acer as the default search engine. Of course this is A-OK because it's Microsoft on the other side of the equation.
Microsoft installs the bing bar without asking, installs other Bing assorted garbage with ZERO prompting, it just does it. A fresh install of Windows 8.1, no updates installed, open and close IE several times, reboot a few times, start IE again "THANK YOU FOR INSTALLING BING! YOUR NEW BING BAR IS READY TO USE!"
This is malware behavior. The fact that you like this particular form of malware doesn't change the fact that it's malware. People didn't ask to have BING take over their browser, in the same way that they didn't ask for conduit to take over.
Weird. I've run Windows 8 for like a year and I still don't have any Bing addons installed. Maybe that's because... and this is a pretty out there suggestion... you're talking shit?
Slashdot Mirror
Except that it's not your system. They own it, not you. In our environment, Group Policy would just undo every change you just made because it's our computer and not yours.
Does Uber verify that drivers actually know the area in which they service? For example in New Zealand (where Uber does operate!) drivers would be legally required to hold a P (passenger) endorsement on their license, and the transport agency requires that drivers demonstrate area knowledge to get a P endorsement (so that they can prove that they aren't going to rip passengers off by going the wrong route).
When the owner (the company owning and managing them, and employing said end user) decides they want to? No more justification needed.
Seriously though, this is intended for use in network environments with things like file servers and backups as well - if you're storing stuff on the local computer, you are doing it wrong (and the fact that you can means your administrators are doing it wrong too).
Oh, fucking bullshit. You can destroy a network just as easily with Puppet or any other Linux deployment toolkit in the hands of someone who isn't careful. You fucking zealots make it hard to actually want anything to do with anything non-Microsoft you know.
That's a dumb idea. Removing centralised management and making life harder is NOT the solution to careless administrators. The solution is not having careless administrators.
No, it's not. It's a huge vulnerability in large enterprise organisations that rely heavily on automated software deployment packages like SCCM in the hands of untrained or careless administrators.
Try that on 10,000 computers.
Bullshit any of the blame should be laid on the management software. Centralised administration systems are not tools for people who don't know what they're doing. They're for administrators who know what they're doing and the consequences of their actions. There's no deficiencies in a piece of software that does exactly what you tell it to do, that's just you zealots lambasting it "cause Microsoft".
You could just as easily fuck up a network of systems with puppet or rsync.
It was a task sequence intended to deploy an entire operating system. Funnily enough, that starts off by preparing the disk for the installation.
Or are you saying Linux is a piece of shit because it prepares to install by running fdisk?
The domain admin account should be used for dsrestore only. Anything else, make a new account.
Er, no, because that wouldn't make a whit of difference whatsoever. The agent would still happily kick off the task sequence, no questions asked.
So basically, exactly the same as SCCM. Got it.
You're not meant to run ADSI Edit without a very, very, good reason. If you do it without a very, very, good reason you are simply asking for a cataclysm.
It's an automated zero-touch deployment mechanism, intended to be run on hardware owned by the organisation operating the server. It is neither incompetence nor arrogance.
People make mistakes, and in this case the software is at least partially responsible. The SCCM server should have aborted during the preflight checks when it realized it was going to take itself out in the process.
Absolutely, 100% wrong. If you target an advertisement at "All Systems", or a collection containing the SCCM server, you are explicitly saying you want that advertisement to apply to the SCCM server as well. In this case, it sounds like the advertisement - OF A TASK SEQUENCE - was targeted at "All Systems", an explicit statement that you want the advertisement to target, you know, "All Systems". Since the Agent Host does more than just task sequences, it absolutely should not automatically not do anything on the Site Systems, because it also handles tasks like patching, application/package deployment, compliance evaluation, etc.
No, if you were to foolishly target the OSD advertisement to "All Systems", the CM agent on the server would happily start the task sequence on itself. On the plus side, once the WDS servers with the boot.wim file are offline, the rest of the fleet would cease reimaging as they would not be able to get the boot image from the TFTP server.
Unless they advertised the task sequence to the unknown computers collection, no policies would have been available to any non-managed computers that joined the network, so they wouldn't have done anything.
Flash was shit before Adobe touched it. Macromedia made Microsoft seem competent.
And your attitude is exemplary of why everyone else in the world largely dislike United States travellers, who are largely considered to be loud-mouthed bigots - a belief largely confirmed by your pithy outburst.
Doesn't work. Accenture is on the preferred supplier panel.
Except that Google should be found guilty, for the same reasons. Just because you don't like Microsoft and you do like Google, that's no excuse to hold them to different standards of behaviour.
Actually, you can't remove the apps that are installed in ROM.
In all fairness, at the time you could hardly call it a "search engine". You could search for itself, and it would still fail to find it.
And yet Microsoft isn't allowed to tell manufacturers that they can't call a computer a Windows PC if they set Yahoo!Acer as the default search engine. Of course this is A-OK because it's Microsoft on the other side of the equation.
Microsoft installs the bing bar without asking, installs other Bing assorted garbage with ZERO prompting, it just does it. A fresh install of Windows 8.1, no updates installed, open and close IE several times, reboot a few times, start IE again "THANK YOU FOR INSTALLING BING! YOUR NEW BING BAR IS READY TO USE!"
This is malware behavior. The fact that you like this particular form of malware doesn't change the fact that it's malware. People didn't ask to have BING take over their browser, in the same way that they didn't ask for conduit to take over.
Weird. I've run Windows 8 for like a year and I still don't have any Bing addons installed. Maybe that's because... and this is a pretty out there suggestion... you're talking shit?