On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Luke Quattrochi wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Dave Close <d...@compata.com> wrote:
I suspect this is yet another MS server program that can only be used
from MS clients. If so, any company that chooses to use it locks out
people who choose to use other clients. Which is, of course, exactly
as MS intended.
I'm not sure where the lock out (or perhaps "lock-in"?) comes in here.
Using DirectAccess would not prevent you from using another solution. If
Linux clients had access previously, they will not suddenly be locked out
upon implementation. If they didn't have access, then how is it a lockout?
The only one doing any locking would be the IT department, not MS. I don't
see any malevolence here.
the problem is that microsoft trained people don't tend to think about
things like this, so the more micorsoft-only things that are created, the
more microsoft-only things get deployed by IT departments that don't know
any better because their only training is from microsoft.
this is a lockout. you can argue that it's the fault of the IT departments
for not getting trained by anyone other than microsoft, but many of us see
this as yet another instance of microsoft implementing something to lock
out everyone else.
We already have WS 2008 infrastructure. IPv6, IPSEC, PKI is already
implemented. I will end up with some 2008 R2 licenses soon enough due to
replacement of aging servers. Our employees run Windows. This to me looks
like a nice value add for any small remote sites where I choose to upgrade
to W7. These sites have 1-3 PC's. They are not on the WAN due to cost. We
don't let them use VPN because they don't need it. It seems to me I could
bring them into the WAN and still isolate them for the safety of the rest of
my infrastructure pretty easily. This would enable me to do all my normal
system management on these PC's very easily, which I can't do now.
Currently they just call us if something breaks. Am I missing some cheap
tech I should've been using? It just seems like a good deal for us.
it may make sense for you, but my initial reaction is why not just use a
VPN?
why should your remote employees _not_ have access to your corporate
resources.
this doesn't even need to be a VPN on each machine, the cost of a router
that can implement a site to site VPN is very low, that would give you the
benifits of being on the WAN without the cost of the WAN connection.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
