Just because the license agreement says so does not make it true. When held under the scrutiny of legal analysis, the validity of a lot of claims in the majority of EULAs are often found false. (Insert article to back this up here. Whoops, I'm lazy. I'll do a Lexis search later.)
They're typically written as scare tactics or ass-covering that the arm-chair user will either blow through and not read, or accept all of the claims as fact. The cost and effort of litigation in these matters is seen as a deterrent for calling the companies on their word play.
It's still a good analogy.
And disabled USB storage is a message if that's what its intent is. If a user goes through with circumventing whatever measures are in place to prevent them from doing something, they are committing an even more overt act against the organization that put that block in place.
You can still, even pre-SP2, take care of preventing the addition of drives on the system through skillful use of the group policy editor.
What is it that motivates systems/network administrators to keep this up? What's your personal motivation besides "it's my job", and the money, and all of that?
Typically, when I'm hired for an admin job, it's on the assumed premise that I care enough to ensure things run smoothly, regardless of the business my client/employer is engaged in. But why? Is a systems administrator really concerned with making this all work, and takes pride in it?
Which is not to say that I've not performed my job over the last 5-7 years or so with this mindset: I've made it fairly clear that I'm always available, and am willing to "do what it takes" (including being called at godawful hours in the morning).... but still, why? Do you derive pleasure from stopping spam, or installing a security update, or recovering from a power outage? Is it the thrill of stress and the subsequent release of that when things go back up?
Why should a business executive expect an IT employee, whatever their salary may be, to actively care about keeping things up? And not in the "what's in it for them" sense, and not in duty-motivated sense.
Eh.
1. Most definitely.
2. I accept that, it's a middle-ground between something more abstract.
3. I'm surprised people do, hats off to anyone who does administration for more than a couple of years, and plans to continue.:)
Am I one of the few IT guys who doesn't take the job that seriously? 2:30 in the morning? Too fucking bad, take care of it in the morning.
Oh, you're a finance company that has mission-critical applications that can't go down? Too bad, it goes down. Nature of computers. Plan ahead in a way that doesn't involve requiring a person to be on call at 2:30 am.
But eh. I suppose some people enjoy this stuff, or think the money is enough compensation for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Your company wants to send out advertisements? Okay, pay your state $0.07 per e-mail and you can bulk mail all you like.
Just because the license agreement says so does not make it true. When held under the scrutiny of legal analysis, the validity of a lot of claims in the majority of EULAs are often found false. (Insert article to back this up here. Whoops, I'm lazy. I'll do a Lexis search later.) They're typically written as scare tactics or ass-covering that the arm-chair user will either blow through and not read, or accept all of the claims as fact. The cost and effort of litigation in these matters is seen as a deterrent for calling the companies on their word play.
It's still a good analogy. And disabled USB storage is a message if that's what its intent is. If a user goes through with circumventing whatever measures are in place to prevent them from doing something, they are committing an even more overt act against the organization that put that block in place. You can still, even pre-SP2, take care of preventing the addition of drives on the system through skillful use of the group policy editor.
I'm not trying to be merely a troll here, but:
What is it that motivates systems/network administrators to keep this up? What's your personal motivation besides "it's my job", and the money, and all of that?
Typically, when I'm hired for an admin job, it's on the assumed premise that I care enough to ensure things run smoothly, regardless of the business my client/employer is engaged in. But why? Is a systems administrator really concerned with making this all work, and takes pride in it?
Which is not to say that I've not performed my job over the last 5-7 years or so with this mindset: I've made it fairly clear that I'm always available, and am willing to "do what it takes" (including being called at godawful hours in the morning).... but still, why? Do you derive pleasure from stopping spam, or installing a security update, or recovering from a power outage? Is it the thrill of stress and the subsequent release of that when things go back up?
Why should a business executive expect an IT employee, whatever their salary may be, to actively care about keeping things up? And not in the "what's in it for them" sense, and not in duty-motivated sense. Eh.1. Most definitely. 2. I accept that, it's a middle-ground between something more abstract. 3. I'm surprised people do, hats off to anyone who does administration for more than a couple of years, and plans to continue. :)
Am I one of the few IT guys who doesn't take the job that seriously? 2:30 in the morning? Too fucking bad, take care of it in the morning. Oh, you're a finance company that has mission-critical applications that can't go down? Too bad, it goes down. Nature of computers. Plan ahead in a way that doesn't involve requiring a person to be on call at 2:30 am. But eh. I suppose some people enjoy this stuff, or think the money is enough compensation for that.