Re: Look at this rubbish

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Roger Johnstone, Jun 21, 2008.

  1. In <485c486f$> Bobs wrote:
    > http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac-planet/2008/6/20/pity-poor-it-guy/?
    > c_id=1501832
    >
    > What a cretin. I especially like this bit
    >
    > "I don't have time to support another type of computer" or "It won't
    > integrate!" "It's not on our program for software support!"
    >
    > The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook, says
    > "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already see on your
    > network, which one should I use?" is comical to say the least. Poor
    > things. How dare a damn Mac user so casually deal to their mana?
    >
    > ******
    >
    > So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan despite the
    > person in charge of it, saying no? The look on their faces in probably
    > one of utter amazement that this guy thinks it's perfectly acceptable
    > to plug in a networked device onto a lan despite not having
    > permission to do so.


    At no time in his blog did anyone say he couldn't connect his Mac, but
    rather that if connected it wouldn't work and they wouldn't fix it or
    support it.

    I thought it was an amusing story about the attitudes some IT people
    have, where they're so used to the problems Windows has and have slowly
    built up so much arcane knowledge on fixing those problems, that they
    don't want to deal with anything 'new' like a Mac because they assume it
    will have just as many problems, except they won't have the knowledge to
    deal with it. In addition there's the conspiracy theory that if the new
    system has far fewer problems then it threatens their own livelihood.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, Jun 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roger Johnstone

    Enkidu Guest

    Roger Johnstone wrote:
    > In <485c486f$> Bobs wrote:
    >> http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac-planet/2008/6/20/pity-poor-it-guy/?
    >> c_id=1501832
    >>
    >> What a cretin. I especially like this bit
    >>
    >> "I don't have time to support another type of computer" or "It won't
    >> integrate!" "It's not on our program for software support!"
    >>
    >> The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook, says
    >> "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already see on your
    >> network, which one should I use?" is comical to say the least. Poor
    >> things. How dare a damn Mac user so casually deal to their mana?
    >>
    >> ******
    >>
    >> So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan despite the
    >> person in charge of it, saying no? The look on their faces in probably
    >> one of utter amazement that this guy thinks it's perfectly acceptable
    >> to plug in a networked device onto a lan despite not having
    >> permission to do so.

    >
    > At no time in his blog did anyone say he couldn't connect his Mac, but
    > rather that if connected it wouldn't work and they wouldn't fix it or
    > support it.
    >

    For some restricted definition of 'work', it might 'just work'. It's
    very unlikely that he could access any network resources like network
    shares, and in most places these days he wouldn't get access to the
    Internet.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Jun 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    news:485c9ee4$...
    > Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >> In <485c486f$> Bobs wrote:
    >>> http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac-planet/2008/6/20/pity-poor-it-guy/?
    >>> c_id=1501832
    >>>
    >>> What a cretin. I especially like this bit
    >>>
    >>> "I don't have time to support another type of computer" or "It won't
    >>> integrate!" "It's not on our program for software support!"
    >>>
    >>> The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook, says
    >>> "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already see on your
    >>> network, which one should I use?" is comical to say the least. Poor
    >>> things. How dare a damn Mac user so casually deal to their mana?
    >>>
    >>> ******
    >>>
    >>> So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan despite the
    >>> person in charge of it, saying no? The look on their faces in probably
    >>> one of utter amazement that this guy thinks it's perfectly acceptable to
    >>> plug in a networked device onto a lan despite not having permission to
    >>> do so.

    >>
    >> At no time in his blog did anyone say he couldn't connect his Mac, but
    >> rather that if connected it wouldn't work and they wouldn't fix it or
    >> support it.
    >>

    > For some restricted definition of 'work', it might 'just work'. It's very
    > unlikely that he could access any network resources like network shares,
    > and in most places these days he wouldn't get access to the Internet.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff
    >
    > --
    >
    > Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    > 'hilarious', it usually isn't?


    The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook, says
    "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already see on your
    network, which one should I use?" is comical to say the least.

    My answer to this would be "Any of those that don't use job accounting
    because Mac drivers never support it", so feel free to dust off the tractor
    feed dot matrix in the corner.

    J&H.
     
    Jekyll and Hyde, Jun 21, 2008
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    vethisbit says...
    >
    > I thought it was an amusing story about the attitudes some IT people
    > have, where they're so used to the problems Windows has and have slowly
    > built up so much arcane knowledge on fixing those problems, that they
    > don't want to deal with anything 'new' like a Mac because they assume it
    > will have just as many problems, except they won't have the knowledge to
    > deal with it. In addition there's the conspiracy theory that if the new
    > system has far fewer problems then it threatens their own livelihood.
    >


    I don't think Bobs is world famous for his sense of humor
    and/or grasp of irony, sarcasm, metaphor and hyperbole yet.

    Indeed, it was an amusing story. Hypothetical cat among the
    pidgeons, that's all. Bit of stirring ;-)

    I've seen my nephew plug his macbook into my lan. No arcane
    rituals required, he plugs the network cable in and it's all
    go. No black candles, no sacrificing goats on the keyboard...
    recognizes my lan printer (not a shared device). Pretty sweet.

    -P.

    --
    =========================================
    firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
     
    Peter Huebner, Jun 21, 2008
    #4
  5. Roger Johnstone

    Enkidu Guest

    Peter Huebner wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > vethisbit says...
    >> I thought it was an amusing story about the attitudes some IT people
    >> have, where they're so used to the problems Windows has and have slowly
    >> built up so much arcane knowledge on fixing those problems, that they
    >> don't want to deal with anything 'new' like a Mac because they assume it
    >> will have just as many problems, except they won't have the knowledge to
    >> deal with it. In addition there's the conspiracy theory that if the new
    >> system has far fewer problems then it threatens their own livelihood.
    >>

    >
    > I don't think Bobs is world famous for his sense of humor
    > and/or grasp of irony, sarcasm, metaphor and hyperbole yet.
    >
    > Indeed, it was an amusing story. Hypothetical cat among the
    > pidgeons, that's all. Bit of stirring ;-)
    >
    > I've seen my nephew plug his macbook into my lan. No arcane
    > rituals required, he plugs the network cable in and it's all
    > go. No black candles, no sacrificing goats on the keyboard...
    > recognizes my lan printer (not a shared device). Pretty sweet.
    >

    Yes, but the same could be said of any PC too. But a corporate LAN is a
    different thing. While he might be able to browse the corporate network,
    he would be less likely to be able to *use* them.

    If anyone connected any computer to our network without permission then
    they'd be out the door, fast. And we might consider wiping his PC or MAC
    too.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Jun 21, 2008
    #5
  6. Roger Johnstone

    Enkidu Guest

    Freesias wrote:
    > On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:19 +1200, Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >
    >>>>> So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan
    >>>>> despite the person in charge of it, saying no? The look on
    >>>>> their faces in probably one of utter amazement that this guy
    >>>>> thinks it's perfectly acceptable to plug in a networked
    >>>>> device onto a lan despite not having permission to do so.
    >>>> At no time in his blog did anyone say he couldn't connect his
    >>>> Mac, but rather that if connected it wouldn't work and they
    >>>> wouldn't fix it or support it.
    >>>>
    >>> For some restricted definition of 'work', it might 'just work'.
    >>> It's very unlikely that he could access any network resources
    >>> like network shares, and in most places these days he wouldn't
    >>> get access to the Internet.

    >> The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook,
    >> says "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already see
    >> on your network, which one should I use?" is comical to say the
    >> least.
    >>
    >> My answer to this would be "Any of those that don't use job
    >> accounting because Mac drivers never support it", so feel free to
    >> dust off the tractor feed dot matrix in the corner.

    >
    > My reckoning is that even *if* a person was physically able to
    > connect an unapproved device to a corporate network that device
    > should not work if the network card's MAC address was not registered
    > with the DHCP server when the computer had the initial site-config
    > done when PC was new.
    >

    Um, no. That would mean that the IT department would need to register
    every MAC address is the place. If that were *thousands* of devices that
    would be a problem. Also, virtual devices might have a different
    hardware address at each boot.
    >
    > I'd go further and suggest that on a properly locked down system the
    > user of an unapproved device (for any particular corporation, such as
    > a MAC in this particular context) would not even be able to view the
    > Intranet or do any printing, or indeed access any networked resources
    > without first authenticating successfully and registering that device
    > on the network.
    >

    Active Directory would prevent an unknown device from accessing network
    resources, always provided that it and all devices were set up correctly.

    Cheers,

    Cliff


    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Jun 21, 2008
    #6
  7. Roger Johnstone

    impossible Guest

    "sam" <> wrote in message news:485c99ed$...
    > Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >> In <485c486f$> Bobs wrote:
    >>> http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/mac-planet/2008/6/20/pity-poor-it-guy/?
    >>> c_id=1501832
    >>>
    >>> What a cretin. I especially like this bit
    >>>
    >>> "I don't have time to support another type of computer" or "It won't
    >>> integrate!" "It's not on our program for software support!"
    >>>
    >>> The looks on their faces when someone like me plugs in a MacBook, says
    >>> "Great, I'm online. Of these printers my Mac can already see on your
    >>> network, which one should I use?" is comical to say the least. Poor
    >>> things. How dare a damn Mac user so casually deal to their mana?
    >>>
    >>> ******
    >>>
    >>> So this tosser just connects his laptop to a corporate lan despite the
    >>> person in charge of it, saying no? The look on their faces in probably
    >>> one of utter amazement that this guy thinks it's perfectly acceptable to
    >>> plug in a networked device onto a lan despite not having permission to
    >>> do so.

    >>
    >> At no time in his blog did anyone say he couldn't connect his Mac, but
    >> rather that if connected it wouldn't work and they wouldn't fix it or
    >> support it.
    >>
    >> I thought it was an amusing story about the attitudes some IT people
    >> have, where they're so used to the problems Windows has and have slowly
    >> built up so much arcane knowledge on fixing those problems, that they
    >> don't want to deal with anything 'new' like a Mac because they assume it
    >> will have just as many problems, except they won't have the knowledge to
    >> deal with it. In addition there's the conspiracy theory that if the new
    >> system has far fewer problems then it threatens their own livelihood.
    >>

    >
    > I thought it was a tragic example of the superficial level that you Mac
    > fans operate at.
    > The assumption that anyone would be amazed that his Mac could browse the
    > shared printers was especially poignant.


    Nah, Mac users take network access for granted -- no need for anyone to be
    amazed because this is the way Macs have always worked. What's amazing is
    the number of staff employed on pc networks just to walk users through the
    process of connecting to printers and such. Natrurally, if you're a tech of
    some sort, like Sam, then you'll cherish your facility with obscure pc
    network commands and you'll defend the hierarchy of control they provide to
    the death, because you're otherwise out of work. I get that. But really --
    it's a very antiquated system.
     
    impossible, Jun 21, 2008
    #7
  8. In <> Enkidu wrote:
    > Peter Huebner wrote:
    >>
    >> I've seen my nephew plug his macbook into my lan. No arcane
    >> rituals required, he plugs the network cable in and it's all
    >> go. No black candles, no sacrificing goats on the keyboard...
    >> recognizes my lan printer (not a shared device). Pretty sweet.
    >>

    > Yes, but the same could be said of any PC too.


    Hmm. We have a grand total of three Windows XP PCs and one printer at
    work on a simple peer-to-peer DHCP network. We finally got around to
    upgrading one of the hard drives from FAT32 to NTFS a week ago. The
    other computers showed the shared volume but complained about not having
    permission to access it. I went around in circles trying to figure out
    Windows' unbelievebly arcane file permissions system. Eventually it
    turned out that the network volume the PCs were seeing was the old FAT32
    one. I had to delete it (even though it no longer existed) and browse
    the network to find the new volume, even though the shared volume on the
    other PC shows up without having to browse for it. Undoubtedly if we had
    a dedicated IT support person they would have known to do this right
    away because they would have seen it before, but for the regular
    computer user it's going to take hours to work out.

    > But a corporate LAN is
    > a different thing. While he might be able to browse the corporate
    > network, he would be less likely to be able to *use* them.


    I confess I've never worked at a big corporation so never experienced a
    locked down network, but I suspect the networks the blog mentioned were
    more likely middle-sized. Big enough to have a dedicated IT guy, but
    small enough or amateur enough that they don't need to worry about high
    security.

    > If anyone connected any computer to our network without permission
    > then they'd be out the door, fast. And we might consider wiping his
    > PC or MAC too.


    That's Mac, not MAC.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, Jun 22, 2008
    #8
  9. In <> Freesias wrote:
    > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:15:48 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >
    >>> If anyone connected any computer to our network without permission
    >>> then they'd be out the door, fast. And we might consider wiping his
    >>> PC or MAC
    >>> too.

    >>
    >> That's Mac, not MAC.

    >
    > Don't you mean "MacIntosh"?


    The full name of the computer is Macintosh. The family name (after which
    several things have been named) can be Macintosh, McIntosh or Mackintosh.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, Jun 22, 2008
    #9
  10. Roger Johnstone

    Enkidu Guest

    Roger Johnstone wrote:
    > In <> Enkidu wrote:
    >> Peter Huebner wrote:
    >>> I've seen my nephew plug his macbook into my lan. No arcane
    >>> rituals required, he plugs the network cable in and it's all go.
    >>> No black candles, no sacrificing goats on the keyboard...
    >>> recognizes my lan printer (not a shared device). Pretty sweet.
    >>>

    >> Yes, but the same could be said of any PC too.

    >
    > Hmm. We have a grand total of three Windows XP PCs and one printer at
    > work on a simple peer-to-peer DHCP network. We finally got around to
    > upgrading one of the hard drives from FAT32 to NTFS a week ago. The
    > other computers showed the shared volume but complained about not
    > having permission to access it. I went around in circles trying to
    > figure out Windows' unbelievebly arcane file permissions system.
    >

    I'm a Unix person these days, and I find that the traditional Unix file
    permissions system to be far too simple and restrictive. The Windows
    NTFS file system permissions are far more flexible and useful.

    For example, in Unix you can only give permissions to one user and one
    group. In many cases that is OK. But the permissions are only read write
    and execute, and the execute attribute allows you to traverse
    directories. Bizarre.

    But sometimes you want to give one group of users one level of access
    and another group a different level of access. Eg users can read/write
    anything, but the backup users can only read (and traverse directories).
    That can't be done with standard Unix permissions.

    In Windows you can set up as many groups as you want and give them
    varied access to the files, and the permissions are much more flexible
    too - you could give traverse directory permissions but not allow the
    group or user to actually read the directories (which is sometimes useful)
    >
    > Eventually it turned out that the network volume the PCs were seeing
    > was the old FAT32 one. I had to delete it (even though it no longer
    > existed) and browse the network to find the new volume, even though
    > the shared volume on the other PC shows up without having to browse
    > for it. Undoubtedly if we had a dedicated IT support person they
    > would have known to do this right away because they would have seen
    > it before, but for the regular computer user it's going to take hours
    > to work out.
    >

    It's not really that hard. The old volume was removed, but the mappings
    on the clients were not.
    >
    >> But a corporate LAN is a different thing. While he might be able to
    >> browse the corporate network, he would be less likely to be able
    >> to *use* them.

    >
    > I confess I've never worked at a big corporation so never experienced
    > a locked down network, but I suspect the networks the blog mentioned
    > were more likely middle-sized. Big enough to have a dedicated IT
    > guy, but small enough or amateur enough that they don't need to worry
    > about high security.
    >

    In any LAN with more than about twenty machines, servers and
    workstations the organisation is likely to use Windows Servers and it is
    likely these days that the servers and the workstations will be part of
    an Active Directory Domain. A foreign machine would not get access to
    network resources because it would not be part of the Domain.

    EVERYONE needs to worry about security. Even the home user. I was the
    'one dedicated IT guy' in a shop with around 20 - 30 servers and a
    couple of hundred workstations and I know that you can't get away with
    an amateur attitude to security.
    >
    >> If anyone connected any computer to our network without permission
    >> then they'd be out the door, fast. And we might consider wiping
    >> his PC or MAC too.

    >
    > That's Mac, not MAC.
    >

    Cheers,

    Cliff



    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Jun 22, 2008
    #10
  11. Roger Johnstone

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>, Freesias@Spring-
    Bulbs.com says...
    > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:27:39 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    > > EVERYONE needs to worry about security. Even the home user. I was the
    > > 'one dedicated IT guy' in a shop with around 20 - 30 servers and a
    > > couple of hundred workstations and I know that you can't get away with
    > > an amateur attitude to security.

    >
    > I'm curious to know why there were upwards of 30 servers for an
    > organisation that had only 200 workstations.


    If yer in Christchurch, go in to Trimble Navigation one day. You'll
    find out exactly why.

    Come on, think about it.

    --
    Duncan
     
    Dave Doe, Jun 22, 2008
    #11
  12. Roger Johnstone

    Enkidu Guest

    Freesias wrote:
    > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:27:39 +1200, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> EVERYONE needs to worry about security. Even the home user. I was the
    >> 'one dedicated IT guy' in a shop with around 20 - 30 servers and a
    >> couple of hundred workstations and I know that you can't get away with
    >> an amateur attitude to security.

    >
    > I'm curious to know why there were upwards of 30 servers for an
    > organisation that had only 200 workstations.
    >

    Web servers on the Internet side, some shared, most belonging to single
    clients, some live and some UAT, web development servers, test machines,
    DR machines, backup servers, Mail server, Mail proxy, VPN server,
    firewall server, file servers, FTP server, and a few more miscellaneous
    servers.

    It soon adds up. There's always servers in the process of being replaced
    too.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
    'hilarious', it usually isn't?
     
    Enkidu, Jun 23, 2008
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tony Evans

    Blocking Rubbish

    Tony Evans, Jun 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,059
  2. Jekyll and Hyde

    Re: Look at this rubbish

    Jekyll and Hyde, Jun 21, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    704
    Enkidu
    Jun 25, 2008
  3. PeeCee

    Re: Look at this rubbish

    PeeCee, Jun 21, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    314
    Jamie Kahn Genet
    Jun 22, 2008
  4. peterwn

    Re: Look at this rubbish

    peterwn, Jun 21, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    314
    Enkidu
    Jun 22, 2008
  5. Enkidu

    Re: Look at this rubbish

    Enkidu, Jun 22, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    597
Loading...

Share This Page