Slashdot Mirror
Using Macs In The Work Place
Kelly McNeill writes "It's been said that bringing a Macintosh into a corporate environment dominated by Windows-based PCs is not an easy task. Once you cut through the corporate red tape, then get through ignorant IT staff you still have to connect and gain access to all the services on the network. osViews editorial contributor Kevin Ledgister took on this challenge and passed the test with flying colors."
And I have had no problems, really. Once you get the TCP/IP stack on the Mac going, and Netatalk on the Linux server, they are just like another node on the network...they can access the internet, and print, and store files on the linux box.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
And they're generally the worst part of it. With Samba now (and going to 3.0 soon), you can basically do whatever you need on a corporate network with OS X. The only problem that remains is Exchange. Even though MS supposedly updated Entourage to deal with it, Exchange support still sucks. Of course, if you're lucky enough to have a company with a Citrix server, there's a native OS X client for that.
"In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death."
I am an IT architect who has for the last 10 years simply plugged my Mac into any LAN where I work. TCPDump allows me to sniff what network range is in use, then ping for an unused IP, and away I go. When support staff walk around, just unplug and look innocent. 99% of corporate security is LAX and allows anything. I keep virtual PC for Project and Visio. Afer staff see me, there is a flood of portables that then appear when the users figure out that can use their nice sleek powerful home portable as opposed to rigid old slow corporate junk. And yes, now with OS X, I can connect easier to Windoze servers. With OS 9 I used DAVE.
"+5 Funny," my ass. I have started to believe this "joke" to be entirely true. You cannot imagine the amount of resistance some company's IT show when you start mentioning replacing some of the Windows boxes with Linux and running Samba. (No one needs a Win2k server and Backup Domain Controller for a ~10 PC, closed-net lab) The only defense they have is that they can't support it. And when you tell them that you don't need theer support, you can handle it, they get extra defensive. Interesting, and sad. Maybe they enjoyed the 36-hour marathon of cleaning up our msblaster problem.
As the system administrator for the project, that best part is I can roll back any changes. Say, if apple were to release a bad update, I could just remove the overload and everyone would be back at say, a working 10.2.7.
Let's see you do that with windows.
I've worked in mixed platform environments for quite some time. My current workplace is about 85% mac, most of which are OS X desktops. The network OS is Win2k. Everybody gets along just fine, network shares behave reasonably and sharing files is fine between users since we make sure to have equivalent versions of desktop apps.
You once had to give a Mac access? What, four years ago? I hate to sound like a fanboy, but I've had positively zero problems getting these Macs connected to our NT network, and I didn't have to change any security policies to do it.
I'm also amused that you make the comment that Windows can connect to any network and be secure. Are you new here? Windows doesn't connect to much of anything securely. Windows also doesn't connect to AppleShare volumes very well. It connects just fine if the Mac or UNIX machine is running a Samba server, though, since that's what Samba was designed to do.
Ugh. This kind of ignorance frustrates me, because it's a major block in the acceptance of alternative operating systems.
- oZ
// i am here.
http://train.apple.com/
</Blatant plug>
--Paul
> I even plugged my laptop into a router outside of our
...
> network and it worked fine. But inside our corporate
> network, I would only get a 169... number which meant
> that I wasn't getting one from the network server.
ifconfig --renew
That will solve his problem lickety-split
> I still couldn't browse network shares and I tried joining
> our Active Directory domain using Admit Mac but it
> wouldn't let me join.
> don't know when this happened but I could now browse
> through the servers and mount them on my desktop. I
> ran back to IT again asking if they had turned on Services
> for Mac, which I had asked them to consider.
What is he *doing* with ADmitMAC? It's simple, click on Finder, select "Go" from the menu and select "Connect to Server". No need for "Services for Mac" or any other BS.
> Then I downloaded Outlook 2001 for OS 8-9 and it
> connected instantly and ran much smoother than either
> of the two methods I used previously. The only downside
> is that Outlook for Mac does not render HTML email
> properly. But that is a small price to pay.
The name for the OS X version of Outlook is ENTOURAGE. He'd know this if he actually bothered to get Office X (which was probably pre-installed on his machine as a 30 day trial anyway).
Did he even TRY to search the net for tutorials on how to get his machine hooked up to a windows network? It *really* is NOT hard. I'm probably being a bit hard on the guy, but COME ON. It's a completely new OS and he's treating it like the 10 years out of date OS 9.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Close, How about: Spoken like someone who's never had one of the user's he was admin'ing be forced to get their own equipment.
They picked a standard platform, Windows on Dell. They know about that platform. They have Dells with windows on them that management has bought for them. They can use them as testbeds.
Oh please. Get some decent people and software, and you don't NEED to get that specific. All standardization does is help the IT department - not the users. I generally hate and despise windows, but the only "unusuable" Dell Laptops I've run into over the years are the ones that belong to non-technical people whose system trays extend more than a third of the way accross the screen.
I would agree - BUT - what are the users doing that required the number of apps they have open? Have you not met their requirements with your standard?
So he goes out and buys a Mac, and suddenly the IT people are magically supposed to know about Macs. Why are they supposed to know about Macs?
Why not? I know about Mac's. Hell I know about PBX's. If you (not specifically you, but this is Slashdot so I have to explain it's not a personal attack) are a technical person, this isn't rocket science. If you can't pick up something new with the fucking Internet as a resource, maybe you need a different career.
They haven't had any Mac training. So what?
They don't have company supplied Macs to use as testbeds. They probably don't own Macs at home. They may never have admined a Mac ever.
So what? They've already failed at what they were trained in - else he wouldn't have bought a Mac.
Yet suddenly because jackass employee went out and bought a Mac, the IT guy (Read: Some poor sap manning the help desk for $9.00/hr) is supposed to know all about Mac configuration, with all of its quirks and oddities(every OS has them). If he'd bought a SparcBook, would you expect them to become Solaris Admins over night? How about if he'd just decided to install BeOS on his Dell? VMS?
HA! Spoken like someone whos never had to admin a large number of users. :P
Seriously. Helpdesk is level 1. If it doesn't fit their scripts, they need to escalate the problem. If the user needs VMS to do their job, and there isn't an IT person on staff who can figure it out, the CIO/CTO needs a flogging.
I hate the implication that every guy whos ever worked with computers is supposed to know about every platform in existence and everything that can possibly be wrong with it and that if they don't they must be incompetent. It seems to be a fairly prevelent attitude.
Just about everyone understands if you DON'T immediately know everything - but you're supposed to be able to figure it out. Again, this isn't rocket science.
I don't expect my proctologist to know why I've got these funny headaches and doubled vision, I don't ask my my optomotrist to look at my twisted knee.
Bad examples, 'the body' is the only thing in common. Why not pick three different types of 'electronics'. Satellite, Computers, and say, short wave radio.
Why the hell should the the help desk guy in a Windows-standard shop be expected to know about Macs when one suddenly shows up on his doorstep one day?
He's not, he should escalate it to the real techs. That's what they're getting paid the big bucks for. Not for sitting on their asses and following a script the IT Manager wrote up, but solving problems. Problems that may not even have a documented solution.
To just give up because "It's not our standard" is beyond being a totally lame loser.
Now you know why so many 'common' people think computer people are snotty and arrogant. You're supposed to help them get their work done. Nothing more, nothing less.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
'Ever seen a badly configured system on the network fuck up connections to other computers?'
Not for years. And we're running the most hererogenous small network I've seen for a long time.
Basically, these days, since unswitched networks and 10-base-2 are gone the way of the winds, there is almost nothing that will bring down a well-designed network except operator incompetence or inadequate design due to inadequate funding or inadequate manpower. Which do you have?
'If an employee needs a tool for their job, they request it, just like any other resource. It will be investigated and implemented if appropriate and feasible.'
This almost always means management will look at it and shrug and look at IT, and IT will look at it and say 'No, that might mean work for us', and the request is rubber-stamped 'no'. As for 'More often than not, it's a bad idea to implement their demands', what that means is, 'I don't care if it actually works, more often than not it annoys me and doesn't save ME any work.'
Mind you, this is most often because IT departments are understaffed by 50% for the work they have to do. But that doesn't excuse the attitude. The appropriate response in that case is, 'We could order that, but we don't have the manpower to support it', or 'We could order that, but only after I talk to him and assure myself that he can support it himself, because we don't have the manpower to support it,' or even, 'Yes, that would be an excellent solution to his problem, and probably make him a lot more productive; it's a pity we don't have the manpower to support it'.
Just rubber stamping 'no' on things, or (even worse) assuming that YOU know better than the end user how to do his job, just leads to the kind of IT that *should* be outsourced to India.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
When you make this argument, it may get a rah-rah from the slashdot crowd, but the people making the decisions think they are doing the right thing by their own criteria.
Exactly. They THINK they are doing the right thing. But they've been so out of touch with what's going on in the trenches they don't really know what's going on. They're more interested in reporting to the CFO, CTO, etc to say "yeah, everything is ok". And maybe I should stop saying "they" considering I was one of those decision-makers. I've been under them, I've been one, I've been consulting them. I've seen it from all sides. Many times, corporate politics play more into these decisions than actual performance.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang