4 ms·

This looks like a FUD rant to me. I work for an organization (thousands of employees/higher ed) that has zero restrictions on what programs you can install and

This looks like a FUD rant to me. I work for an organization (thousands of employees/higher ed) that has zero restrictions on what programs you can install and use on your computer. For example, I use Thunderbird instead of Outlook. It works out fine for IT because the vast majority of users who need help with things like security patches and document formatting or management, do not go out of their way to use firefox, open office, or google docs. They use the programs installed on their computers by IT, and only change when an update is pushed onto their machine. The people who seek out these other tools tend to be savvier and need nearly 0 IT support time (The only time I've had to seek out support was due to hardware failure). The people who need the greatest level of support don't know how to use the pre-installed software (Word/Outlook/PowerPoint/IE), or get frustrated with it.

skolor 17y ago
A question: how often do you have problems not directly related to the use of the software? I work in a similar situation (thousands of employees/higher ed) with little restrictions (some departments set their own restrictions on their users). Working in the IT department, I can tell you that while direct support of the applications is very small, around 75% of my daily work if from users being allowed to whatever they want. If it isn't a virus they got from what they "thought was a safe site" (and which was almost always non-work-related), it will be some application triggering the virus scanner (to every user who has installed 5+ search toolbars: STOP. They don't help any, and are giving away your internet history). Another side effect from letting most of the users install whatever they want is a general slow down of their computers. Most users don't seem to understand that all the applications installed on their computer do, in fact, slow it down, and are shocked when their brand new computer, which they got because their old one was so slow, ends up slowing down after a few weeks of use. From what I have seen, the areas that are locked down as to what employees can install have around a 4-5 year new hardware schedule (purchasing new computers for the staff, usually replacing 20-25% per year), while the areas that allow the users to install their own software tend to have around a 2 year replacement schedule (and tend to support that schedule by only purchasing new computers for a small fraction of the users, and passing all the old machines down, which tends to make the people on the bottom of the pile very unhappy, and using 5-6 year old machines).
- dgabriel 17y ago
  I'm a programmer, so desktop support/management is out of my purview. I just spoke with one of our IT staff, though, and she confirmed what you state here. She said that in my department, support is close to zero because developers are better at managing their computers, but the majority of her work is made up of fixing the computers of assistants and researchers who've managed to do something silly, and do not have the knowledge or skill to back out the change. Also, these are the same people who forward dangerous, non-work emails through Outlook, or get caught in a phishing expedition using IE. So it's clearly not as simple a problem as it seems from either side. I assume there's a cost/benefit ratio that might be (additional productivity) - (additional IT staff) > zero. That said, I like the freedom to use the tools that work for me. I'd be pretty angry if IT policy changed, so my perspective is colored.
  - skolor 17y ago
    And that, unfortunately, is the biggest problem with IT policy. It is deceptively easy to give permission for an application for one or two people, but once you start trying to take anything away you have a total shit-storm on your hands. This is the primary reason IT policy tends towards white-listing (you can only use the applications/sites wee say you can) rather than blacklisting (you can use any apps/sites, except...). IT already takes a lot of crap from the users, adding in the complaints from users who have been told "No, you can't use the app you've relied on for years" is generally a bad idea.
jvdh 17y ago
Imagine a company where information flows have to be closely monitored and/or guarded. Like say, a hospital, a bank, or a financial corporation. Any leaking of information in any which way is going to be a severe loss for that company So they will not just allow users to do what they want with their computers. In this case you do have to assume the worst and assume that users are stupid and will install stuff left and right.
- dgabriel 17y ago
  Sure, there are exceptions and common sense should prevail.
  - jvdh 17y ago
    I don't follow. Of course you want common sense to prevail. And I'm not saying that you should always treat users as if they are stupid. But you do have to assume the worst when you're dealing with these kinds of severe business risks. And these business risks are not just for a small group of companies.
    - dgabriel 17y ago
      What I mean is this: if a computer is used to process or access very sensitive data, then the user of that computer cannot have as much leeway as other users. It's possible, and sensible, to have flexible policies depending on business usage.

skolor 17y ago

A question: how often do you have problems not directly related to the use of the software? I work in a similar situation (thousands of employees/higher ed) with little restrictions (some departments set their own restrictions on their users). Working in the IT department, I can tell you that while direct support of the applications is very small, around 75% of my daily work if from users being allowed to whatever they want. If it isn't a virus they got from what they "thought was a safe site" (and which was almost always non-work-related), it will be some application triggering the virus scanner (to every user who has installed 5+ search toolbars: STOP. They don't help any, and are giving away your internet history). Another side effect from letting most of the users install whatever they want is a general slow down of their computers. Most users don't seem to understand that all the applications installed on their computer do, in fact, slow it down, and are shocked when their brand new computer, which they got because their old one was so slow, ends up slowing down after a few weeks of use. From what I have seen, the areas that are locked down as to what employees can install have around a 4-5 year new hardware schedule (purchasing new computers for the staff, usually replacing 20-25% per year), while the areas that allow the users to install their own software tend to have around a 2 year replacement schedule (and tend to support that schedule by only purchasing new computers for a small fraction of the users, and passing all the old machines down, which tends to make the people on the bottom of the pile very unhappy, and using 5-6 year old machines).

dgabriel 17y ago
I'm a programmer, so desktop support/management is out of my purview. I just spoke with one of our IT staff, though, and she confirmed what you state here. She said that in my department, support is close to zero because developers are better at managing their computers, but the majority of her work is made up of fixing the computers of assistants and researchers who've managed to do something silly, and do not have the knowledge or skill to back out the change. Also, these are the same people who forward dangerous, non-work emails through Outlook, or get caught in a phishing expedition using IE. So it's clearly not as simple a problem as it seems from either side. I assume there's a cost/benefit ratio that might be (additional productivity) - (additional IT staff) > zero. That said, I like the freedom to use the tools that work for me. I'd be pretty angry if IT policy changed, so my perspective is colored.
- skolor 17y ago
  And that, unfortunately, is the biggest problem with IT policy. It is deceptively easy to give permission for an application for one or two people, but once you start trying to take anything away you have a total shit-storm on your hands. This is the primary reason IT policy tends towards white-listing (you can only use the applications/sites wee say you can) rather than blacklisting (you can use any apps/sites, except...). IT already takes a lot of crap from the users, adding in the complaints from users who have been told "No, you can't use the app you've relied on for years" is generally a bad idea.

jvdh 17y ago

Imagine a company where information flows have to be closely monitored and/or guarded. Like say, a hospital, a bank, or a financial corporation. Any leaking of information in any which way is going to be a severe loss for that company So they will not just allow users to do what they want with their computers. In this case you do have to assume the worst and assume that users are stupid and will install stuff left and right.

dgabriel 17y ago
Sure, there are exceptions and common sense should prevail.
- jvdh 17y ago
  I don't follow. Of course you want common sense to prevail. And I'm not saying that you should always treat users as if they are stupid. But you do have to assume the worst when you're dealing with these kinds of severe business risks. And these business risks are not just for a small group of companies.
  - dgabriel 17y ago
    What I mean is this: if a computer is used to process or access very sensitive data, then the user of that computer cannot have as much leeway as other users. It's possible, and sensible, to have flexible policies depending on business usage.