Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Jan 2014 23:13 UTC
Windows

Microsoft is once again planning to alter the way its Start Screen works in Windows 8.1 Update 1. While the software giant originally released Windows 8.1 last year with an option to bypass the "Metro" interface at boot, sources familiar with Microsoft's plans have revealed to The Verge that the upcoming "Update 1" for Windows 8.1 will enable this by default. Like many other changes in Update 1, we’re told the reason for the reversal is to improve the OS for keyboard and mouse users.

Wow, a touch interface does not work with a mouse and keyboard. Who saw that coming.

I expect photos of many people eating crow.

Thread beginning with comment 582100
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: It's really not so bad...
by novad on Fri 31st Jan 2014 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's really not so bad..."
novad
Member since:
2010-06-10

"There is no usable equivalent in the Mac or Nux world. It's as simple as that.

Stuff like Chef & Puppet are far more flexible and powerful than GPOs.
"

The keyword here is usable. Or maybe I should have said usable in a convenient way. Looks like I've offended some people with that.

These tools are powerful it's true. You can dig quiet deeply in system configurations but what's about the time you need for that?

As another guy here has said. A lot is preformatted in GPOs. That's fine and good but that doesn't restrict you to those preconfigured settings. When you want to setup something that isn't covered by GPOs and/or additional ADMX files (And that doesn't leave a lot) you can still do whatever you want with direct registry tweaks or scripts



Puppet are far more flexible and powerful than GPOs.


Please tell me one single thing you weren’t able to setup through:
- An "out of the box" GPO setting (with or without additional ADMX)
- A registry key (Deployed by GPO)
- A startup/logon/logoff/shutdown script (Also called by GPO)

Reply Parent Score: 2

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

The keyword here is usable.

Is it? O.K. I didn't realise that "usability" was a major concern for a systems administrator. I've certainly never met one who cared about usability at the expense of flexibility, but I guess your mileage may vary.

As another guy here has said. A lot is preformatted in GPOs. That's fine and good but that doesn't restrict you to those preconfigured settings.


A lot of pre-written manifests/cookbooks/stacks/script are available for the various configuration management tools I mentioned, too.

When you want to setup something that isn't covered by GPOs and/or additional ADMX files (And that doesn't leave a lot) you can still do whatever you want with direct registry tweaks or scripts


Right, which is directly comparable to the stuff you can do with Chef or Puppet. Hell I can run Ruby directly on the host I'm configuring and break out from there to all sorts of Gems if I want to.

Please tell me one single thing you weren’t able to setup through:
- An "out of the box" GPO setting (with or without additional ADMX)
- A registry key (Deployed by GPO)
- A startup/logon/logoff/shutdown script (Also called by GPO)


I never said I wasn't able to do so, but lets not pretend that mucking about with ADMX's is simple (or for that matter, creating your own), or that (to pick an example) any of those incredibly simple things is in any way comparable to a full set of Chef Roles & Cookbooks that take a bare Ubuntu Server install and configure it was a complete and running OpenStack Nova compute server complete with Quantum support. And then does that across 1000 servers at the same time.

Just sayin'

Reply Parent Score: 4

novad Member since:
2010-06-10

I didn't realise that "usability" was a major concern for a systems administrator.


It is... If not that means you're a masochist. If the exact same thing can be done with one click or with tinkering around 2 hours I chose the "one click".

I've certainly never met one who cared about usability at the expense of flexibility


Neither do I. I prefer to choose a convenient method when it's available... When not... Then let's go the hard way.

A lot of pre-written manifests/cookbooks/stacks/script are available for the various configuration management tools I mentioned, too.


Well... Looks like you sometimes also chose "prewritten" stuff instead of the flexibility of fully handmade configuration ;)

The problem with these pre-written manifests/cookbooks/stacks/script is that these are external tools (mostly). You must double-check everything before you can use them. That's still quicker than writing them yourself but isn't exactly funny.

Right, which is directly comparable to the stuff you can do with Chef or Puppet. Hell I can run Ruby directly on the host I'm configuring and break out from there to all sorts of Gems if I want to.


Sure... And that's good so. But for me this kind of solution is to be used only if nothing else is left. Scripts can be very dangerous. It's much easier to make a mistake while changing a script than unticking a checkbox.

But lets not pretend that mucking about with ADMX's is simple (or for that matter, creating your own)


Adding official ADMX files to an AD is really easy. If you have never done that simply try once. Creating ADMX files is much more complicated. That's true... But except in very specific cases i'll never try to make my own ADMX files. What isn't covered with available ADMX files is done through scripting.

As I already said. That doesn't let a lot left.

Reply Parent Score: 1