Please explain why that’s a reasonable thing to do if that is actually what OP did.
If OP applied the GPO to all or many users that’s fine, but IMO it’s weird to force these kinds of changes on users unless many complain. In my experience most actually like a colossal search bar for some reason.
If OP uses a GPO as their personal config, that can’t be how they are supposed to be used. But maybe that’s really common, sounds pretty odd though. (I don’t think OP actually did this, the first option seems more likely and my comment above was mostly a joke).
Either way, OP should troubleshoot their GPOs before complaining about it.
I work at a Managed Service Provider for IT and we have a ton of GPO policies that are labeled “VIP”, which is internally understood as ‘there’s no reason for this policy to exist except that someone in power demanded we create it’. Many of those policies are dialed down to a single or small handful of people.
If OP uses a GPO as their personal config, that can’t be how they are supposed to be used.
“Supposed to” doesn’t matter at all in this context. The point and the utility of GPO on Windows Pro is that it allows admins much more granular control of a workstation, AND an admin can override rights limitations that are built into Windows Home simply because Microsoft doesn’t like home users tinkering with the OS, but accepts that business environments often require it for security or legacy software reasons.
Thus Microsoft has restricted GPO to Pro versions of the Windows OS, presuming that only business environments will elect to purchase it and GPO use will be restricted to experienced admins.
Because of this, there are things you can do with GPO on a Pro machine – combining elevated rights with granular settings – that you can’t even do with direct registry hacks on a Home machine. If OP fucks it up, they are the only ones who will suffer, but they also have the knowledge and ability to restore it to working condition (even if that means a reinstall). No harm, no foul.
And even if they don’t fuck it up, there is a non-zero chance that Microsoft will do it for them with one of their forced upgrades anyway.
So if OP is running Windows Pro on a home machine and using GPO on a domain of one to override all the silly bullshit Microsoft has done to stop users from moving away from default home configs, more power to them I say.
No puppies are being harmed by O{ using GPO to hack his home machine, lol.
no, that would be insane. I run an active directory compatible server (samba 4) in my network so i can get the same settings when i have a new pc (i always reinstall stuff from zero)
lud@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Please tell me you didn’t create a GPO for just your account so you could disable the search bar, lol.
dan@lemmy.fdr8.us 11 months ago
Tell us your not a sysadmin without telling us you’re a sysadmin.
lud@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Please explain why that’s a reasonable thing to do if that is actually what OP did. If OP applied the GPO to all or many users that’s fine, but IMO it’s weird to force these kinds of changes on users unless many complain. In my experience most actually like a colossal search bar for some reason.
If OP uses a GPO as their personal config, that can’t be how they are supposed to be used. But maybe that’s really common, sounds pretty odd though. (I don’t think OP actually did this, the first option seems more likely and my comment above was mostly a joke).
Either way, OP should troubleshoot their GPOs before complaining about it.
TeddE@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I work at a Managed Service Provider for IT and we have a ton of GPO policies that are labeled “VIP”, which is internally understood as ‘there’s no reason for this policy to exist except that someone in power demanded we create it’. Many of those policies are dialed down to a single or small handful of people.
ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 11 months ago
“Supposed to” doesn’t matter at all in this context. The point and the utility of GPO on Windows Pro is that it allows admins much more granular control of a workstation, AND an admin can override rights limitations that are built into Windows Home simply because Microsoft doesn’t like home users tinkering with the OS, but accepts that business environments often require it for security or legacy software reasons.
Thus Microsoft has restricted GPO to Pro versions of the Windows OS, presuming that only business environments will elect to purchase it and GPO use will be restricted to experienced admins.
Because of this, there are things you can do with GPO on a Pro machine – combining elevated rights with granular settings – that you can’t even do with direct registry hacks on a Home machine. If OP fucks it up, they are the only ones who will suffer, but they also have the knowledge and ability to restore it to working condition (even if that means a reinstall). No harm, no foul.
And even if they don’t fuck it up, there is a non-zero chance that Microsoft will do it for them with one of their forced upgrades anyway.
This entire thread is about an unnecessary change Microsoft made to the LTSC (“long term servicing channel”) version of Windows: the whole point of LTSC is that it’s not supposed to change at all unless absolutely necessary, so that it remains stable for as many environments for as long as it can, reducing maintenance costs for businesses running it. Behold how easily and for what little payoff Microsoft shat on that too.
So if OP is running Windows Pro on a home machine and using GPO on a domain of one to override all the silly bullshit Microsoft has done to stop users from moving away from default home configs, more power to them I say.
No puppies are being harmed by O{ using GPO to hack his home machine, lol.
Moonrise2473@feddit.it 11 months ago
no, that would be insane. I run an active directory compatible server (samba 4) in my network so i can get the same settings when i have a new pc (i always reinstall stuff from zero)
lud@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Alright, if it’s your own domain carry on.
RazorsLedge@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Folks, don’t worry. lud approved it.