1) I wasn't really involved in this thread. 2) I certainly didn't say anything to you directly that would've required an apology, I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I was making the point that we work within a framework of the organization with the goal to maximize end user's productivity within that framework.
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]>wrote: > Good, good… we agree that some things are indeed ‘wrong” from a corporate > perspective. > > > > Apology accepted. > > > > > > -sc > > > > *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, May 30, 2009 9:47 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Amusing > > > > As IT professionals, we are resposible for all facets of technology in the > enterprise. User interaction with technoogy is but one part of the > equation. For example you mentioned USB keys and the VPN. USB based memory > could be a security issue in many organizations, and it would be IT's > responsibility to implement solutions to deny their use. With a VPN > selected users could be chose to have or not have access depedning upon the > organization's needs, and it can even be more selectively enforced so only > certain equipment is able to connect. Taking the aforementioned steps could > hamper a user's ability to work, but is a necessary side-effect to meet an > organizational goal. The example is simplistic and neglects other methods > for distributing data outside of the enterprise. > > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The statement was: > > > > *“Who says what’s “right,” though? That brings us back to trying to force > humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the way > users work.”* > > * * > > That was stated a general ideology. > > * * > > So you may say that *in this context* there was no reason to categorize > the behavior as “wrong” (although you seemed to leave out the third leg of > my concern, *recoverability*, which in Harris’ example to which you > responded would be a significant issues if users were allowed to store > “everything” in their mailboxes.) > > > > I gave you a quick example of why we *are* in a position to say what is > “wrong” to do. And I could easily come up with dozens of others. You’ll > notice I never said we shouldn’t provide effective alternatives. But your > response demonstrates that we often do have to call something “wrong” for > very valid reasons. > > > > -sc > > > > *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, May 30, 2009 7:22 AM > > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Amusing > > > > I agree—but in this context, we weren’t talking about behavior that was > compromising network stability or organizational security. > > > > In the case you give, we as IT pros need to look at why users would prefer > USB storage to VPN-ing. Is it because VPN is to slow? Too complicated? Too > unreliable? Let’s understand the underlying behavioral issues, and develop > an answer that meets the user’s needs. It may involve changing encrypting > the data on the USB key. If encryption on the key isn’t possible or is > viewed as less safe than the VPN connection, then we’ve got to make the VPN > connection as fast, easy, and reliable as the USB key is for them. > > > > > > John > > > > > > *From:* Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2009 7:26 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Amusing > > > > I think when employee behavior compromises the ability to maintain a stable > network and/or effectively store/manage/recover stat within the constraints > (financial or otherwise) that the company imposes, it’s “wrong” for that > organization. > > > > Would you say storing critical data on USB keys instead of the redundant > and backed up file server is “wrong” even if employees find it convenient to > not have to VPN in? > > > > I would. > > > > -sc > > > > > > *From:* John Hornbuckle [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2009 10:05 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Amusing > > > > Who says what’s “right,” though? That brings us back to trying to force > humans to adapt to technology rather than designing technology for the way > users work. > > > > I used to fall more into the camp of believing that users needed to adjust > their ways to fit the technology. But as I’ve worked on my Master’s in MIS > over the past year, I’ve done a lot of reading about human-computer > interaction, human behavior, employee motivation, and related fields. My > views have really shifted quite a bit. > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > *From:* Jon Harris [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2009 9:58 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Amusing > > > > I agree with several others that said just because you can don't make it > right. I have one user whinning that wants to store EVERYTHING in his > Exchange mailbox. His box is 1 GB at the moment and he has been hinting > that he might like to have more. I only get lucky in that we don't control > our email service some one else does and they have a hard and fast rule that > 1 GB is the max and most will only get 50 MB total. Our users for the most > part are use to using PST's to store their stuff and understand the (old) > rule of 4 GB max in the PST. They know that when they blow the limit I > don't fix the PST I delete it. (I actually just remove the file from the > system and store it unless it is urgent.) One blown PST per year reminds > them use the server for exchanging files not email. In some ways us being > behind for so long is a blessing. They use to have open shares on every > desktop and laptop until they lost several weeks worth of work when the user > "owning" the file turned off the machine with other users using files on the > machine. That got us our first real server. Now they would not even think > to ask for open shares on their machines. > > > > My being an a$$ helps a lot as well. I love to say "I told you so" with a > big smile on my face. > > > > Jon > > > > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Carl Houseman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 9GB SCSI disks? I hope they're still stuck on Exchange 2000 as well... > Swapping out 73GB or 150GB SCSI disks hopefully! > > As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU > requirements for the product? Doubtful. The thing they're eliminating is > a > bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of > regression testing with each new release. You won't find anyone to admit > that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod > from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced > staffing. > > Carl > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:28 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Amusing > > The harm might be increased CPU or memory usage, reduced scalability etc. > > Whilst you can quantify some direct benefits (more disks), I assume that > most people will be swapping 9GB SCSI disks for new 1TB SATA2 disks that > probably consume a bunch less power. Additionally the increased > productivity > if features are deployed correctly will, IMHO, save a bunch of energy. > > People are point the finger at data center power and cooling requirements, > but look at how IT has transformed business - everything from online > banking > to systems that more effeciently route FedEd/DHL drivers to save time and > energy. > > We really don't have enough information. I suspect that this is based on > analysis of what's cost effective given real world data and complaints > about > the limitations of Exchange. We've had the same complaints about UAC or > Office 2007 ribbon UI, 16->32->64bit computing. But with a bit of > subsequent > tweaking, I'm sure we'll not want to go back to what we had before. > > Cheers > Ken > > ________________________________________ > From: Carl Houseman [[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:16 PM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Amusing > > I have to agree. What's the harm in leaving in a feature that is working > perfectly well? We see this all the time, working features removed from > upgraded products. They tried to do the same with PF's and we pushed back, > and hopefully PF's will continue for the forseeable future. I guess it's > too late to reverse the decision on SIS, but MS needs to understand that > pulling features has consequences. > > Not to mention, just because running more cheap SATA drives is an > alternative to SIS, doesn't make it a good idea. Running more drives means > higher power consumption, more rack/floor space. Did MS miss the "green" > bus here? There's public relations gold in being able to advertise green. > > Carl > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Scott [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:03 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Amusing > > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Brian Desmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > OK so before we go down the Exchange 2010 sucks because I think I > > need single instance [attachment] storage route, let's look at some > > other new stuff: > > I'm not saying Exchange 2010 doesn't bring anything to the table. > It has a lot of really interesting features. For us, I know, the > archiving capabilities are *really* interesting. > > But here's the thing: If someone has a product that has features > that one uses today, and the next release of the product takes away > those features, that's a step backwards. It doesn't matter that the > new release is faster/lower/longer/wider, if it doesn't deliver what > we're depending on today. > > Since we're using bad analogies: Look at your car. Say next year's > model has a better radio, GPS navigation, power seats, and a built-in > hibachi grill. But it gets 1/2 as many miles to the gallon. What do > you care more about? > > (Again, scalability upward doesn't matter to us small shops. We > don't care if you can run 3000 users per server where you could only > run 1000 before. We only have 70 users; other small shops will have > fewer, or a few hundred, tops.) > /> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
