Re: Re: Locking down users

Daniel C. von Asmuth wrote:

>  Thus quoth Richard.Corfield.Admin-XZoyATsUNX5Wk0Htik3J/[email protected] op Sat, Oct 25, 2003
>  at 08:31:05AM +0100:
>
> > The quoted fear is that the user installation would break something
> > - DLL Hell perhaps - and the user would be running to helpdesk for
> > help. There's also tracking of licenses etc. Fortunately, I have
> > my own Linux box to do as I wish on, and thats how I reach and beat
> > deadlines.
>
>
>  Where I worked my Windows PC was controlled by the Sysadmins.
>  Microsoft Office was mandatory.

Not that I agree with the suite but in any company a standardized office 
suite is much easier on administrators
and support staff then a pick and choose scenerio. If the 
"administration" is going to take responsibility of
data on users boxes it is exponentially harder to assure that you have 
100% of everyones data when your not
sure whos useing what suite and not backing up the entire filesystem. 
I't hard enough getting users to save
docs to a standard location like "My Documents". Most non geeky users 
will install weatherbug, bonzai buddy,
webshots and any  other goofy app that happens their way.

>  Linux was forbidden, but I was lucky to get a Unix machine I could
>  fully control.

Sounds like your sysadmin is a bit freightened of a linux box... I 
worked at a company once that was SUN all
the way. They were freightened of linux. Said it was sooooo insecure... 
I'm still shaking my head.

>  (surely the company was not willing to make a backup of my Windows
>  box every week). So I needed the Sysadmin folks to install software
>  on the Windows box.

Thats sad....there is no reason not to backup every week. Every machiene 
on my network is backed up every
otherday, windows 98,NT,2k,servers,clients, Linux, macOS9,OSX, everyone. 
Time is money and data loss can
be devistating.

> > Corporate IT likes control. I was thinking about this new DRM
> > system Microsoft are pushing very heavily for email. Unless it
> > allows corporate IT to run their mail scanning software and
> > anti-virus and to be able to read what their minions have said at a
> > later date - its not going to be wanted. My company blocks PGP at
> > the corporate mail gateway (though PGP followed by ROT13 gets
> > through fine) - then appends 21 lines of legal junk to the effect
> > that we really wish we could encrypt mail.
>
>
>  'Techie' users try hard to defeat Corporate control. They wouldn't
>  ask for the help desk because they can manage their box better than
>  the company sysadmin.

Wow hes starting to sound really lazy, time for an evaluation.

>  The so-called 'PC revolution' apparently happened because users
>  wanted a DOS box they could control themselves, rather than a
>  mainframe login under the supervision of the IT department. It would
>  seem that revolution has been reversed by now.

Like their own little mainframe eh? hehe I was only a kid then.

In some environments it makes good sence to not allow users access to 
installing apps.
For instance a point of sale system, they build these things on win98 
boxes! Design flaw.
In some others its neer impossible for employees to accomplish work 
without having full
control of their company issued PC. I wouldn't expect to ever hand out a 
laptop and tell
an employee they can't install additional software on it. It makes more 
sence to make them
responsible for any and all additional software & hardware on the 
laptop. The alternative is
to police them and IMO that poor corperate control and neer impossible. 
We want productivity.

>
>  Of course, this thread has little to do with Linux any more.

Eventualy it's going to be as Chevy or Ford , vi or emacs, choice 
creates conflict. It
should be, to an extent, the users choice and simply governed for 
liability or corperate
intrests by owners of the equiptment.
Cheers,
Eric.

>
>
>  Kind regards,
>
>
>
>  Daniel von Asmuth
>
>