Does this mean the government can cut your fuel lines if you text while driving now? Or shit why not just allow the RIAA to cut off your electricity if you're found downloading media. No power to the home equals no possible way you could use your electronics, problem solved! And why stop at phones??
you are thinking WAAAY to small in five years time it will look like this:
1) all movies and music not purchased from industry authorized retailers is illegally downloaded.
2) if you illegally download movies or music, the entertainment industry is authorized to hunt you down and kill you.
3) not purchasing media from industry approved retailers is considered illegal downloading.
4) therefore, if you do not make a monthly purchase of media in an amount determined by the industry, they will hunt you down and kill you.
and that's how you save the entertainment industry.
He said many of us would like to do good substantive reporting on stories. The problem is the Public's eyes would just glaze over.
ahh yes, the "americans are too stupid to recognize quality" argument which can be used to explain the overall decline in the quality of pretty much all media.
in that case you wouldn't get an intellectual revolution but an extension of what you'd find at any shopping mart, that is, same shit as on TV.
i am not sure what the ipod did for music, but the mp3 damn sure leveled the playing field for non-industry music. perhaps this is my bias as a technology type, but to me the ipod became a necessity because we all had gobs of mp3's and were dying for a great player to put them to use.
once the market decided it liked mp3s over CDs you had a huge surge of independently made and digitally distributed music.
ebooks are now where mp3's were 8-10 years ago. if/when they see the boom that mp3's saw i'll bet you will see a similar boom in independant digitally distributed literature.
There are several more good quotes in the article that show does get it. But then he refers to it as "Good Enough" again..
the whole think kind of reminds me of "worse is better" where you get something that is not great, but widely distributed (unix and C compared to LISP, at the time the article was written) and once there is a large audience for than environment, and that audience doesn't have high expectations for said environment, programmers will want to make improvements to the environment.
kind of explains the popularity of windows (relatively cheap, runs on most commodity PC hardware, relatively easy to use, large base of familiar users with generally low expectations) despite its shortcomings and the availability of supposedly better designed or cheaper ones.
if you follow that logic to the present, it's kind of ironic that the wintel platform that rose up from the 90's to displace mainframes and unix are now being displaced to an increasing degree by web applications.
WRONG! The first automobiles were immensely expensive, for the most part, prone to breakdowns and suffered from an extreme lack of supporting infrastructure (passable roads, petrol/kerosene, etc.).
for what it's worth, there was some talk here a few days ago about the cost of a horse and buggy being mostly the horse, or multiple horses in the case of daily or extended use:
an auto body, circa 1900, was very much like a buggy. In 1900, a typical buggy might have cost about fifty dollars-- say, $2500 in modern money. That was small compared to the price of an automobile. It was also small compared to the cost of a horse and buggy. A good ninety percent of the cost of a horse and buggy was the horse, not the buggy. That especially meant the ongoing expense of the horse's food. Someone who made his living riding or driving might require a herd of anything up to a hundred horses, in the case of heavy hauling or stagecoaches. RFD mail carriers, who had to go twenty-four miles a day, tended to keep several horses and change them annually, spending hundreds of 1900 dollars in the process each year (tens of thousands in modern money). A cowboy would have a "remuda" of ten horses. The horses wore out, and had to be changed frequently. (See James Bruns, _Motorized Mail_, Andy Adams, _Log of a Cowboy_).
i remember the comment because i had never thought of horses and buggies that way before and i had sort of marveled at just how the automobile managed to take off the way that it did.
While true, that is a reactive response to the job responsibilities. Far better to be proactive and have the policies in place that limit the opportunities for people to do stupid things. Or would you disagree with the axiom "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
that's great if what you want to prevent can actually be prevented, or that an ounce of prevention is a real substitute for a pound of cure. i have worked for large IT groups (big insulation manufacturer, large metropolitan hospital, large mortgage company, large publisher) and small startups, and i have worked outside of IT in software development shops and a lot of times, the ratio is something more like two pounds of prevention being worth a pound of cure.
i have worked in draconian shops where no one is authorized to do anything, and i have worked in concierge type shops where the prevailing attitude is "do what you have to do and we will help you do it." the job is still the same: fix broken stuff, undo stupid mistakes, try to keep the ship from sinking, but one job produces a working relationship with users, and one produces and adversarial one.
when i help people do their jobs, they are more inclined to help me do mine. when i prevent people from doing their jobs they do what they can to prevent me from doing mine. i guess the axiom would be "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar".
Agreed. Which is why the controls are put in place. I'd rather deal with them before they propagate on the network by limiting the opportunities to get on in the first place.
that's great when the threats are highly automated and mostly static (like viruses were in the 90's) and you can just lock stuff down to keep it out. today's threats route around locks because they are being driven by teams of skilled and motivated professionals.
so, if the locks aren't working, why punish users with them? if you are being actively thwarted by one group why take steps to alienate another?
Not entirely true, but close enough. So again, since you have established that the users are the problem, why is it that the controls and restrictions should be relaxed?
because the user isn't going to change. no one is going to stand up and say "i'm stupid and i take responsibility for that stupidity". no manager is ever going to say, "IT is right, i'll tell my people to stop doing that."
so you are faced with a group of people who will not change how they operate (your users) and a group of people who will adapt to every change you make to protect your infrastructure, and you have management that will not spend the money to give you the tools and personnel you need to be productive. in that situation you need to make friends.
if the primary responsibility is to ensure that the user base has the resources to do their job, we have to make sure that the same user base cannot engage in activities that may deny those resources to the other users.
yes, you have to protect the company's infrastructure, but there is a universe of difference between taking reasonable measures to protect that infrastructure, and using the infrastructure as an excuse to be a petty tyrant.
so as you lock things down for the greater good, ask yourself, am i doing this to protect everyone, or am i just being (or acting on the behalf of) a petty tyrant?
You make it sound like if only IT would do their jobs right everything would be hunky dory.
damn right. IT is two functions: protect the company's infrastructure AND help people use the company's infrastructure to do their jobs.
if you can't help, then get out of the field because if your users can't do their jobs, then you aren't doing yours.
user gets control (downloads latest malware from random emails/websites) IT gets to clean up the mess.
that is what IT is *for*. fixing the stupid things that people do with computers, software and networks is your function.
sometimes you can fix things with education, sometimes you can fix them with software tools, and sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and do actual work.
i'm sure the thought of sitting around doing nothing and letting restrictive policy and bureaucracy shield you from actual work is very appealing, but it never happens.
The company I work for is pretty lax and I do end up dealing with a lot of spyware and viruses.
and dealing with spyware and viruses is part of what the job entails. the job changed about 8 years ago with the advent of spyware and it's not going to change back.
you used to be able to passively deal with most threats, but the bad guys move quickly now and are way more hands on nowadays, which means that you should be too.
people make mistakes and things get hacked; it's a fact of life with computers.
in the old days, viruses were a highly automated problem that you could use a highly automated solution to fix (AV software). an automated solution only works for old and well understood threats.
today, malware is the product of dedicated teams of skilled and motivated individuals with tons of tools and tactics at their disposal. how do you deal with that? by using teams of skilled and motivated individuals to play defense.
you are either skilled and motivated enough to make a difference, or you're not. if you're not then move out of the way and let someone else take a shot at it.
the behavior of the user is key to preventing the malware issue and you just can't depend on users to always make the best decision.
no it's not. the behavior of the user will not change, ever. when it comes to you vs. your users, you are outgunned and outnumbered and that will never change.
the only thing that has the possibility of changing is your attitude about the user and your understanding of your responsibilities as an IT professional.
if people cleaned up after themselves there wouldn't be janitors in this world. if you don't like cleaning up messes, then you shouldn't work as a janitor. IT is the same way. Technology progresses faster than the average worker can keep pace with, that's why companies hire IT people, to keep pace on behalf of their workers.
Hey dummy! Ghost is EXPENSIVE. (Unless you don't have a license). So many of you DON'T understand economics
http://www.runtime.org/driveimage-xml.htm the commercial version if drive imageXML for 100 users is 5 bucks per user for a year. there's also free solutions like partimage and dribbl.
Buy a Checkpoint firewall (and the expensive expertise to run it). Money doesn't grow on trees, moron.
modern versions of windows come with a passable firewall built in.
if you want to firewall network segments, iptables and PF are now and will always be free :-)
Your reply makes absolutely no sense at all... How can he secure the network and OS but give the user full control?
secure the network: use intrustion detection and prevention systems to prevent and/or log malicious bits on the wire. use a firewall that allows most outbound connections, but prevents most/all inbound connections that are not a response to a request from an internal host. log connections (not packets) so you can spot suspicious trends in network traffic.
secure the OS: use AV/anti-malware software with realtime file system protection and use a firewall to that allows most outbound connections, but prevents most/all inbound connections that are not a response to a request from the host.
user gets control (add hardware, software, access websites) but is protected from malicious activity.
whenever i get a new machine from IT i always have to figure a way around the rules so that i can perform my job correctly without going through all the procedures an IT department wants me to do to make sure it goes through their system correctly which could take months.
that is the problem that IT departments should be worried about: creating subversive users.
i know how to crack the local admin password on a windows box to get admin privileges, and how to tunnel traffic to get around network filters and sniffers. at that point i am directly connected to the internet and running as root... the whole reason workstations and networks are locked down and firewalled in the first place.
this is why restrictive IT policies are a bad idea and why you should be working with the people inside the firewall instead of against them.
Obviously Chris you are not an IT support person. I've been doing real support since 1987 ... in todays world with every manf putting the cheapest handiest part in every machine keeping proper images of all machines and possible configs is a daunting proposition.
no it's not. if you don't want to use images then you can slipstream drivers into your install disc. the technology is free you just have to learn how to do it and take ownership of the process.
i have worked in IT support (doing it now) and i have worked in software development. so i have been on the IT side trying to keep people from wrecking stuff, but i have also been on the development side, being prevented from doing my job by draconian IT policies.
i always found a way around, but it made me the enemy. that is the problem: working against the people inside the firewall, when you should be working against the people outside the firewall.
But when a company has 100 users and only 1 part-time IT person(who is not a professional IT person, the norm for a lot of companies today) it's almost impossible to find the resources so locking everything down is the only possible solution.
no, it means the IT department sucks, which was my original point.
Lost productivity for an individual user is nothing compared to the lost productivity when documents are lost, machines crippled, etc.
yeah, it's called disaster recovery. i do it everyday, and if your IT guys can't help you recover from a disaster, they suck, also my original point.
Sad, but just the plain fact. Since windows dominates, learn group policies, learn security and lock them down will make your overall users more productive.
i used to think that 10 years ago, but i don't anymore. after being on the other side of IT, i understand the frustration that people feel when they can't do their jobs. IT support is also about supporting people, not just servers and applications.
Our job here is to listen to the users and give them what they need, not what they think they want. We have to make sure we understand what they want to accomplish and work with them to provide that capability. That doesn't mean deny them every thing, just make sure it will provide a benefit, embrace the technology to make the company more efficient, responsive, etc.
yeah, and 6 month approval processes for everything just hold people back. change is not just inevitable, it's accelerating and that will be what separates successful companies from roadkill.
so you can sit on your hands and hide behind policies and other bureaucracy as an excuse for not getting things done, or you can move the envelope back a little and be part of the solution.
So IT is a reactionary profession and should in no way be proactive? Because it is only about fixing things after the fact right?
depends on how strong your department's leadership is.
a good leader, or at least one with significant political power can make your job fairly proactive. since IT costs money and doesn't make money (saving money doesn't count), there aren't many strong leaders in IT departments. the decent ones usually end up somewhere else.
weak leaders, or ones with no support from the company, will make your just about purely reactionary.
being reactionary doesn't make the job any less important, nor does it allow you to be less than professional.
One of the places I worked at had four 'unlocked' machines in the canteen so that users could surf all they wanted (within reason), play games and so on. The rest of the system was locked up tight (a financial company). However, we found that if we restricted the machines enough to stop the malware getting through (removed IE, set up a reasonable AV system) the users complained that 'they couldn't do what they wanted' - PopCap springs to mind. So the upshot was that the machines were removed since maintenance, if the users had their way, sould have been an expensive nightmare.
banks have wire transfer terminals in separate rooms specifically for this reason. you have to do what is necessary to both protect the company AND provide useful services to end users. these are not mutually exclusive objectives. they are two very distinct and very important responsibilities.
fixing these sorts of things is the purpose of IT. that's exactly why you are there. after 12 years of IT, i can confidently say that malware and spyware have made our jobs significantly more difficult, but that doesn't change anything.
i remember the old days when i mostly installed new gear and helped people learn to use it. it was great, i made decent money for just knowing how to operate a computer. the job was easy in those days, but those days are long gone.
the job is a lot harder now that everyone is expected to know how to operate a computer (even when they don't) and so now i fight the chinese and the russians on an almost daily basis for control of my company's computers. the game has changed, but the objective hasn't: protect the company *AND* serve its users.
What you are suggesting is that the user is not at all responsible for their own actions? it's the standard mantra, everyone else is responsible for my mistakes, right?
responsibility? in a business? what planet are you from?
no one anywhere at any time is responsible for anything that they do. it's been that way for a long, long time.
ou can't fix stupid, but you sure as hell can fire stupid, replacing it with smart! Users who get their system infected should be held responsible for this mess they've caused! First time? Educate them. Second time? Warn them! Third them, give them the boot!!!
Make your employees responsible for their own stupidity.
no one is responsible for their own actions in a corporation so that is never going to happen.
you have to give the children exactly what they want and then come to the rescue when they have gotten themselves in trouble. it's your fault they are in that mess, so it's your responsibility to save the day. that's your job and if you don't like it then quit.
the problem isn't that end users are stupid. they are, and everyone knows it. the problem is the attitude of IT support types who think they can engineer stupidity to a manageable level.
IT is about fixing things that stupid people do. low level IT guys fix stupid desktop problems, high level IT guys fix stupid executive decisions that threaten the infrastructure for the entire enterprise.
at the end of the day, if you can't handle fixing stupid mistakes, then you have no business being in IT.
On the post: Recording Industry, Japanese Gov't Work To Break Your Mobile Phone If You Listen To Unauthorized Music
Re:
you are thinking WAAAY to small in five years time it will look like this:
1) all movies and music not purchased from industry authorized retailers is illegally downloaded.
2) if you illegally download movies or music, the entertainment industry is authorized to hunt you down and kill you.
3) not purchasing media from industry approved retailers is considered illegal downloading.
4) therefore, if you do not make a monthly purchase of media in an amount determined by the industry, they will hunt you down and kill you.
and that's how you save the entertainment industry.
On the post: How The UK Gov't Extrapolated 136 Self-Reported File Sharers Into 7 Million
Re: Shocked
1) water is wet.
2) the sky is blue.
3) size matters.
On the post: Only 8% Of Journalist Coverage Of Healthcare Debate Is Actually About The Healthcare System
Re: I Believe Ted Koppell Said It Best
ahh yes, the "americans are too stupid to recognize quality" argument which can be used to explain the overall decline in the quality of pretty much all media.
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Re: Re: Re: Won't affect most hardcovers
i am not sure what the ipod did for music, but the mp3 damn sure leveled the playing field for non-industry music. perhaps this is my bias as a technology type, but to me the ipod became a necessity because we all had gobs of mp3's and were dying for a great player to put them to use.
once the market decided it liked mp3s over CDs you had a huge surge of independently made and digitally distributed music.
ebooks are now where mp3's were 8-10 years ago. if/when they see the boom that mp3's saw i'll bet you will see a similar boom in independant digitally distributed literature.
On the post: It's Not The 'Good Enough' Revolution; It's Recognizing What The Consumer Really Wants
Re: Right idea, wrong name.
the whole think kind of reminds me of "worse is better" where you get something that is not great, but widely distributed (unix and C compared to LISP, at the time the article was written) and once there is a large audience for than environment, and that audience doesn't have high expectations for said environment, programmers will want to make improvements to the environment.
kind of explains the popularity of windows (relatively cheap, runs on most commodity PC hardware, relatively easy to use, large base of familiar users with generally low expectations) despite its shortcomings and the availability of supposedly better designed or cheaper ones.
if you follow that logic to the present, it's kind of ironic that the wintel platform that rose up from the 90's to displace mainframes and unix are now being displaced to an increasing degree by web applications.
also, like anything else in life there is an XKCD comic to cover it: http://www.xkcd.com/484
On the post: It's Not The 'Good Enough' Revolution; It's Recognizing What The Consumer Really Wants
for what it's worth, there was some talk here a few days ago about the cost of a horse and buggy being mostly the horse, or multiple horses in the case of daily or extended use:
an auto body, circa 1900, was very much like a buggy. In 1900, a typical buggy might have cost about fifty dollars-- say, $2500 in modern money. That was small compared to the price of an automobile. It was also small compared to the cost of a horse and buggy. A good ninety percent of the cost of a horse and buggy was the horse, not the buggy. That especially meant the ongoing expense of the horse's food. Someone who made his living riding or driving might require a herd of anything up to a hundred horses, in the case of heavy hauling or stagecoaches. RFD mail carriers, who had to go twenty-four miles a day, tended to keep several horses and change them annually, spending hundreds of 1900 dollars in the process each year (tens of thousands in modern money). A cowboy would have a "remuda" of ten horses. The horses wore out, and had to be changed frequently. (See James Bruns, _Motorized Mail_, Andy Adams, _Log of a Cowboy_).
i remember the comment because i had never thought of horses and buggies that way before and i had sort of marveled at just how the automobile managed to take off the way that it did.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that's great if what you want to prevent can actually be prevented, or that an ounce of prevention is a real substitute for a pound of cure. i have worked for large IT groups (big insulation manufacturer, large metropolitan hospital, large mortgage company, large publisher) and small startups, and i have worked outside of IT in software development shops and a lot of times, the ratio is something more like two pounds of prevention being worth a pound of cure.
i have worked in draconian shops where no one is authorized to do anything, and i have worked in concierge type shops where the prevailing attitude is "do what you have to do and we will help you do it." the job is still the same: fix broken stuff, undo stupid mistakes, try to keep the ship from sinking, but one job produces a working relationship with users, and one produces and adversarial one.
when i help people do their jobs, they are more inclined to help me do mine. when i prevent people from doing their jobs they do what they can to prevent me from doing mine. i guess the axiom would be "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar".
Agreed. Which is why the controls are put in place. I'd rather deal with them before they propagate on the network by limiting the opportunities to get on in the first place.
that's great when the threats are highly automated and mostly static (like viruses were in the 90's) and you can just lock stuff down to keep it out. today's threats route around locks because they are being driven by teams of skilled and motivated professionals.
so, if the locks aren't working, why punish users with them? if you are being actively thwarted by one group why take steps to alienate another?
Not entirely true, but close enough. So again, since you have established that the users are the problem, why is it that the controls and restrictions should be relaxed?
because the user isn't going to change. no one is going to stand up and say "i'm stupid and i take responsibility for that stupidity". no manager is ever going to say, "IT is right, i'll tell my people to stop doing that."
so you are faced with a group of people who will not change how they operate (your users) and a group of people who will adapt to every change you make to protect your infrastructure, and you have management that will not spend the money to give you the tools and personnel you need to be productive. in that situation you need to make friends.
if the primary responsibility is to ensure that the user base has the resources to do their job, we have to make sure that the same user base cannot engage in activities that may deny those resources to the other users.
yes, you have to protect the company's infrastructure, but there is a universe of difference between taking reasonable measures to protect that infrastructure, and using the infrastructure as an excuse to be a petty tyrant.
so as you lock things down for the greater good, ask yourself, am i doing this to protect everyone, or am i just being (or acting on the behalf of) a petty tyrant?
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
damn right. IT is two functions: protect the company's infrastructure AND help people use the company's infrastructure to do their jobs.
if you can't help, then get out of the field because if your users can't do their jobs, then you aren't doing yours.
user gets control (downloads latest malware from random emails/websites) IT gets to clean up the mess.
that is what IT is *for*. fixing the stupid things that people do with computers, software and networks is your function.
sometimes you can fix things with education, sometimes you can fix them with software tools, and sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and do actual work.
i'm sure the thought of sitting around doing nothing and letting restrictive policy and bureaucracy shield you from actual work is very appealing, but it never happens.
The company I work for is pretty lax and I do end up dealing with a lot of spyware and viruses.
and dealing with spyware and viruses is part of what the job entails. the job changed about 8 years ago with the advent of spyware and it's not going to change back.
you used to be able to passively deal with most threats, but the bad guys move quickly now and are way more hands on nowadays, which means that you should be too.
people make mistakes and things get hacked; it's a fact of life with computers.
in the old days, viruses were a highly automated problem that you could use a highly automated solution to fix (AV software). an automated solution only works for old and well understood threats.
today, malware is the product of dedicated teams of skilled and motivated individuals with tons of tools and tactics at their disposal. how do you deal with that? by using teams of skilled and motivated individuals to play defense.
you are either skilled and motivated enough to make a difference, or you're not. if you're not then move out of the way and let someone else take a shot at it.
the behavior of the user is key to preventing the malware issue and you just can't depend on users to always make the best decision.
no it's not. the behavior of the user will not change, ever. when it comes to you vs. your users, you are outgunned and outnumbered and that will never change.
the only thing that has the possibility of changing is your attitude about the user and your understanding of your responsibilities as an IT professional.
if people cleaned up after themselves there wouldn't be janitors in this world. if you don't like cleaning up messes, then you shouldn't work as a janitor. IT is the same way. Technology progresses faster than the average worker can keep pace with, that's why companies hire IT people, to keep pace on behalf of their workers.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
no it solves one specific problem.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: What are you people, 9 years old?
On the post: US Gov't Briefing For All Employees: All Music Downloads Are Stolen, Risky
Re: Re:
That's stealing.
On the post: US Gov't Briefing For All Employees: All Music Downloads Are Stolen, Risky
Re: Re: Re: Awesome
That's stealing.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.runtime.org/driveimage-xml.htm the commercial version if drive imageXML for 100 users is 5 bucks per user for a year. there's also free solutions like partimage and dribbl.
Buy a Checkpoint firewall (and the expensive expertise to run it). Money doesn't grow on trees, moron.
modern versions of windows come with a passable firewall built in.
if you want to firewall network segments, iptables and PF are now and will always be free :-)
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re:
secure the network: use intrustion detection and prevention systems to prevent and/or log malicious bits on the wire. use a firewall that allows most outbound connections, but prevents most/all inbound connections that are not a response to a request from an internal host. log connections (not packets) so you can spot suspicious trends in network traffic.
secure the OS: use AV/anti-malware software with realtime file system protection and use a firewall to that allows most outbound connections, but prevents most/all inbound connections that are not a response to a request from the host.
user gets control (add hardware, software, access websites) but is protected from malicious activity.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that is the problem that IT departments should be worried about: creating subversive users.
i know how to crack the local admin password on a windows box to get admin privileges, and how to tunnel traffic to get around network filters and sniffers. at that point i am directly connected to the internet and running as root... the whole reason workstations and networks are locked down and firewalled in the first place.
this is why restrictive IT policies are a bad idea and why you should be working with the people inside the firewall instead of against them.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re:
no it's not. if you don't want to use images then you can slipstream drivers into your install disc. the technology is free you just have to learn how to do it and take ownership of the process.
i have worked in IT support (doing it now) and i have worked in software development. so i have been on the IT side trying to keep people from wrecking stuff, but i have also been on the development side, being prevented from doing my job by draconian IT policies.
i always found a way around, but it made me the enemy. that is the problem: working against the people inside the firewall, when you should be working against the people outside the firewall.
But when a company has 100 users and only 1 part-time IT person(who is not a professional IT person, the norm for a lot of companies today) it's almost impossible to find the resources so locking everything down is the only possible solution.
no, it means the IT department sucks, which was my original point.
Lost productivity for an individual user is nothing compared to the lost productivity when documents are lost, machines crippled, etc.
yeah, it's called disaster recovery. i do it everyday, and if your IT guys can't help you recover from a disaster, they suck, also my original point.
Sad, but just the plain fact. Since windows dominates, learn group policies, learn security and lock them down will make your overall users more productive.
i used to think that 10 years ago, but i don't anymore. after being on the other side of IT, i understand the frustration that people feel when they can't do their jobs. IT support is also about supporting people, not just servers and applications.
Our job here is to listen to the users and give them what they need, not what they think they want. We have to make sure we understand what they want to accomplish and work with them to provide that capability. That doesn't mean deny them every thing, just make sure it will provide a benefit, embrace the technology to make the company more efficient, responsive, etc.
yeah, and 6 month approval processes for everything just hold people back. change is not just inevitable, it's accelerating and that will be what separates successful companies from roadkill.
so you can sit on your hands and hide behind policies and other bureaucracy as an excuse for not getting things done, or you can move the envelope back a little and be part of the solution.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
depends on how strong your department's leadership is.
a good leader, or at least one with significant political power can make your job fairly proactive. since IT costs money and doesn't make money (saving money doesn't count), there aren't many strong leaders in IT departments. the decent ones usually end up somewhere else.
weak leaders, or ones with no support from the company, will make your just about purely reactionary.
being reactionary doesn't make the job any less important, nor does it allow you to be less than professional.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re: I'm an IT Pro
banks have wire transfer terminals in separate rooms specifically for this reason. you have to do what is necessary to both protect the company AND provide useful services to end users. these are not mutually exclusive objectives. they are two very distinct and very important responsibilities.
fixing these sorts of things is the purpose of IT. that's exactly why you are there. after 12 years of IT, i can confidently say that malware and spyware have made our jobs significantly more difficult, but that doesn't change anything.
i remember the old days when i mostly installed new gear and helped people learn to use it. it was great, i made decent money for just knowing how to operate a computer. the job was easy in those days, but those days are long gone.
the job is a lot harder now that everyone is expected to know how to operate a computer (even when they don't) and so now i fight the chinese and the russians on an almost daily basis for control of my company's computers. the game has changed, but the objective hasn't: protect the company *AND* serve its users.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re:
responsibility? in a business? what planet are you from?
no one anywhere at any time is responsible for anything that they do. it's been that way for a long, long time.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Make your employees responsible for their own stupidity.
no one is responsible for their own actions in a corporation so that is never going to happen.
you have to give the children exactly what they want and then come to the rescue when they have gotten themselves in trouble. it's your fault they are in that mess, so it's your responsibility to save the day. that's your job and if you don't like it then quit.
the problem isn't that end users are stupid. they are, and everyone knows it. the problem is the attitude of IT support types who think they can engineer stupidity to a manageable level.
IT is about fixing things that stupid people do. low level IT guys fix stupid desktop problems, high level IT guys fix stupid executive decisions that threaten the infrastructure for the entire enterprise.
at the end of the day, if you can't handle fixing stupid mistakes, then you have no business being in IT.
Next >>