> yes but not like that. Users shouldn't be allowed to ask for a
> specific thing like Exchange. They should describe what they want
> to achieve and let the IT people design and implement the best solution.
Oh, yes, I agree perfectly...
Have you ever tried to impliment this ?
Users where I work wanted a "firewall" for one particular deparement
(not trusting the rest of the company, etc).
I, naturally, suggested that they impliment a Linux solution and
between the time they mentioned it and the "formal meeting" the
following day, had a rudimentary but workable solution on the network
for them (P75 that was about to be toasted).
When I showed them this, they insisted on knowing why I hadn't used
"... approved Microsoft solutions....".... Long and overly technical
discussions ensued.
End result ? We are getting a Microsoft-based firewall solution
(probably Checkpoint or Firewall One). Why ? Because they believe that
Microsoft is "unbreakable". Thank God they didn't ask me to buy another
IP440 Nokia Firewall for them ($80k).
So we'll let Mr Consultant install his M$ product (they don't want IT
to have administrative control over it), then when I break it several
times, maybe they'll see my point.
Oh, and the fully side of all of this - the M$ solution that was
demonstrated incurred a performance hit when "authenticating" through
the firewall..... They had been running for a week with the Linux one
installed and didn't even realise it.
I give up on some people...
--
Regards,
Jon
--------------------------------------------------
"It is irresponsible to connect a Windows machine
to the Internet" ....... John Wiltshire (SLUG)
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
