Entries:
Comments:
Discussions:

Loading user information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading user information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Elmer elmer I'm on my very last life.
  • IT bricking IE

    It's been ages since I've used GPOs to configure IE, but I thought that you could see what changes are being made (if any) just by looking at your browser settings (particularly security and connection) and if you are being blocked from doing that, then you have a clue there is some jiggery-pokery going on.

    However, it's possible that it's as simple as there being a proxy which IE is auto-discovering and configuring itself to use, and FF is not doing that. If there is URL blocking configured at the proxy, it might be that IT is not even aware that FF is bypassing it.

    Or... another thought... it's even possible that there is a filtering proxy in situ, which is not even intended for general browsing use, but the default settings in IE result in it auto-discovering and using it in error (Connection>Lan Settings) and I don't think FF does that by default (?). Again, IT will be best placed to explain what the issue is.

  • IT bricking IE

    , cheong wrote

    *snip*

    Their IT should setup transparent proxy or normal proxy server, and then configure the hardware firewall to block outgoing port 80 and 433 if they're that paranoid. No need to mess with GPO at all.

    Yep, that's what we do - a cache-security array that uses WCCP2 to our ASA firewall - no need for proxy settings or special GPO configs, because the ASA transparently redirects, regardless of your browser choice or browser config.

  • IT bricking IE

    Using Group Policies to override IE's Security Options, would be an extremely clunky and tedious way to enforce URL filtering - that's a maintenance nightmare.

    More commonly, you'd just use GPOs to set IE's proxy-server/cache address - to reduce web-traffic and optionally implement your URL filtering there. Of course, if that is the case, and you are a user with sufficient rights to change the proxy settings in IE, then bypassing is simple enough.

  • IT bricking IE

    , magicalclick wrote

    We ended up using FF because there is no GOP rule to block it. But, if that's the case, why even bother with GOP rule? Just to sabotage IE?

    But does everyone have the authority to install FF ?

    Our offices enforce web access control using a filter-array at the perimeter, which can't be bypassed. We try to limit blocking to risky, anti work-policy, and blatant time-wasting sites, but if you are getting blocked and need access, you simply have to make a request for an exception, and it's normally granted.

  • Solutions in search of problems ...

  • Jury: Google allowed to use Java APIs in Android

    Oracle were always going to struggle with their argument, when Sun had apparently previously given approval (albeit reluctantly) for the use of Java APIs in Android. The jury appears to have decided that Oracle can't un-do that approval, which seems reasonable enough.

  • Surface phone

    , Wodd wrote

    But, the Lumia product line simply no longer fits elmer's taste.

    It's not a matter of "taste" but a matter of Lumia offering no compelling reason to invest my hard-earned.

    Microsoft are ensuring that you can get the same apps & services from them regardless of what platform you choose, which means that there is precious little reason to favour the Microsoft device.

    I don't think (and I don't believe that I have ever said) that the 950 is a BAD phone (from a hardware point of view) but WM on Lumia brings nothing to the table that either iOS or Android devices can't offer as well or better, and lags way behind both of them in too many areas.

    If a 950 were to be offered at 1/3 of its current off-plan price, then that might be a valid reason worth considering. But when it costs as much (or more) than the alternatives, and offers less than them... why would I choose it?

    With regard to running Win32 applications, that is probably still impractical.

    *snip*

    The point of an x86 device was never to run W32 apps on the handset, but to enable them to be run when docked. A feature that the competition could never offer.

    However, the x86 handset appears to be dead & buried, now that Intel have pulled the plug on low-power Atoms, so unless Microsoft can develop an x86 docking device that allows this ability to run W32 apps (we've discussed this concept in other threads) then we are back to Lumia(Surface) phones offering no compelling reason to choose them, and a long list of reasons not to.

  • Nasty Microsoft

    As Paul Thurrott says here

    "My God, Microsoft. Just stop."

  • Nasty Microsoft

    @bondsbw:

    , bondsbw wrote

    *snip*

    If it were only that simple.  Many people just want to use the same OS with no changes whatsoever.  But then they also want it to have the latest security and performance enhancements along with compatibility with the newest applications and other improvements.

    There are always extremes (Steve Gibson for example) but I believe that most people object to change on a simple "who moved my cheese" basis, and would be less resistant if MS was not so intransigent in the way it deals with this type of feedback.

    Support for personalisation to the degree that users could immediately feel comfortable with a familiar UI, and then explore the newer options at their own pace, would go a long way to placating the resistance many users and businesses have - needing to relearn-retrain just to be able to do the same task, is a pretty reasonable argument for saying no.

    As an example, Stardock (with a small team) has shown that it's perfectly possible to provide users with a familiar start menu they can select, that does not impede the functionality of W10 but allows users to apply what they already know, while making use of what's new. Sure, those who know about it can buy the product and fix that problem cheaply, but it would have made things less of a drama if MS actually listened to what people are saying, and provided what they asked for.

    I know that Steve Jobs famously proclaimed that users don't know what they want until you give it to them, but that level of arrogance only works with Apple.

  • Nasty Microsoft

    GWX is an example of corporate stupidity and incompetence.

    Stupidity on the part of the people who actually think this is a good idea, and incompetence on the part of higher management who let them damage the company by not restraining them.

    Microsoft - make a product that people WANT to install.