OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/20716/At_Home_with_HomeGroup_in_Windows_7 Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:02:48 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Just what we need http://osnews.com/thread?342134 http://osnews.com/thread?342134 Just what we need, another way to have people set up and manage networks without having a clue how they work. Tech support should sue Microsoft for all the headaches their "innovations" have caused. Geeks say "users are idiots", not because they're stupid, but because they expect their computer to run on magic and dream dust and don't bother trying to understand it. This will only make the problem worse than it already is. I thought file sharing in Windows was already easy enough (though it is easier in Linux - sorry, force of habit ;) ), and it does already shield the user from complexity while still allowing access to the advanced options. Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Moredhas) Comments RE: Just what we need http://osnews.com/thread?342160 http://osnews.com/thread?342160 Are you 15 or something? I use Linux exclusively for as long as I remember(10+ years?), but your comment has me perplexed. You mean that my father has to understand how file sharing works? Otherwise he is not worthy enough to use a computer?

And NFS is easier to set up than Windows shares? Oh Really?

Kid, the problem is shared filesystems are showing their age plus the fact there is no common protocol across different platforms. They are definitely not easy enough to set up. Maybe for me and you and everyone that is computer literate, but that should not be the case. Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (NotInterested) Comments RE: Just what we need http://osnews.com/thread?342161 http://osnews.com/thread?342161 Are you on something? Have you even tried it?

The end user shouldn't have to understand it, they should just be able to use it. If this 'innovation' makes it easier, then we should be applauding it.

I shouldn't have to understand how my car engine works in order to drive the car. Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (flanque) Comments Comment by mallard http://osnews.com/thread?342162 http://osnews.com/thread?342162 This all looks fine, but now there are two different network discovery/management systems in Windows.

There's the old domain/workgroup system, and this new "homegroup" system. The homegroup system requires less management overhead, and is significantly easier to use.

How long before small businesses start to want these features?
Or worse, if a small business sets up a "homegroup" network then wants to upgrade to a domain-based network, they are pretty stuck (since, it appears that domains are only available for NLA "work" networks and homegroups are only available for NLA "home" networks, a single network cannot have both domain and homegroup functionality). Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mallard) Comments RE: Comment by mallard http://osnews.com/thread?342176 http://osnews.com/thread?342176 There have always been two, workgroups and domains are completely different things. And HomeGroup is just a fancy way of saying Workgroups 2.0. Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[2]: Comment by mallard http://osnews.com/thread?342186 http://osnews.com/thread?342186
There have always been two, workgroups and domains are completely different things.


Not they aren't. A domain is simply a workgroup with a few extra features, like centralized authentication. From the perspective of a non-member, there is no difference between a domain and a workgroup. There is also an easy upgrade path from workgroup to domain as all you need to do is add a domain controller (then clients can be added to the domain at will). Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mallard) Comments RE[3]: Comment by mallard http://osnews.com/thread?342190 http://osnews.com/thread?342190 Workgroups are peer to peer networks of computers. Name resolution is done via netbios. The only way to do anything on another computer is to have an account on that computer. No computer has control over another one.

Domains are networks set up by a domain controller. Name resolution is done via a DNS server. Your domain account determines your rights on any computer on the domain. Group policies can be pushed out over the network to control most features in windows is a very granular fashion. Domain admins have admin rights on every computer on the domain, and can do everything from lock it down to push out network wide deployments of software.

The computers communicate together with smb, that is the only similarity between domains and workgroups. Sat, 03 Jan 2009 03:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (google_ninja) Comments RE[4]: Comment by mallard http://osnews.com/thread?342204 http://osnews.com/thread?342204 You seem to be confusing "features that require a domain" with "properties of a domain itself".

Workgroups are peer to peer networks of computers.

As are domains. The only difference is that one peer has some extra services.

Name resolution is done via netbios.

(You mean WINS) or DNS. There is nothing stopping you using DNS on a workgroup.

The only way to do anything on another computer is to have an account on that computer. No computer has control over another one.

Correct, workgroups don't have centralized authentication.

Domains are networks set up by a domain controller.

Sort of. You can add a domain controller to an existing workgroup to make it a domain.

Name resolution is done via a DNS server.

Or WINS. While Windows 2000 and above force you to set up a DNS server when setting up a domain, there is no requirement for the members of the domain to actually use that DNS server. In fact, the domain can work perfectly fine in this way.

Your domain account determines your rights on any computer on the domain.

Its, far more complicated than that. A domain provides centralized authentication, but each computer can have it's own security configuration, granting or not any rights to both domain and local users.
Group policies can be pushed out over the network to control most features in windows is a very granular fashion.

This is a feature that requires a domain, not a property of the domain itself.
Domain admins have admin rights on every computer on the domain, and can do everything from lock it down to push out network wide deployments of software.

Domain admins have admin rights on domain members by default, but you can easily remove the domain admins group from the local admins group. The ability to push software is another feature that requires a domain.


The computers communicate together with smb, that is the only similarity between domains and workgroups.


Basically, the properties of a domain are a superset of those of a workgroup. Sat, 03 Jan 2009 13:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mallard) Comments RE: Just what we need http://osnews.com/thread?342302 http://osnews.com/thread?342302 We should thank Microsoft for this because without them trying to make their PCs "just work" for everyone, we'd be out of jobs.

The end user IS an idiot, and that's why I get paid.Edited 2009-01-04 20:49 UTC Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Phloptical) Comments