[DM-MUG] Why can't Mac OS X be on our server?

[Chris Van Cleve]

If you truly need help with making your case for this, I am willing to=20=

lend a hand. I work in an IT department and have been fighting the=20
Windows hegemony there for 7 years. Over time I prevented replacing our=20=

sole Mac with a Windows box (it helped that the graphic Designer was=20
going to quit if they did that to her), got the Mac updated, convinced=20=

them to add 2 more designers with Macs, got the Network Admins to open=20=

up Appletalk on all printers and Appletalk shares on the servers... Now=20=

with Panther we've removed the Appletalk shares and use the built-in=20
Samba to make the necessary connections, allowing our designers to=20
access their department share drive for the first time.

Enough of all that, though. last year I went to war. Lots of research=20
and documentation. The end result? I just installed our first XServe=20
for both security, shares, and workgrouping for our designers and to=20
serve as our Intranet server. Next week my Windows PC gets replaced=20
with a new PowerMac G5 for two distinct reasons:

1. I'm also the webmaster and I explained how having a Mac with it's=20
software just plain makes more sense.
2. I'm the guinea pig for IT infrastructure isolation. Get this: if I=20
can weather virus inundation better than the rest of the IT staff and=20
continue to do my work unhindered, the entire department may be moving=20=

to Macs. The only problem here is that we do our jobs too well. We have=20=

yet to be infected by any of the major viruses that have hit the past=20
couple years. :/

I've been through that war though and can offer arguments specific to=20
your needs if such should arise. Just let me know. And Jim is right,=20
BTW. Never make your argument by bashing the opposing argument. You do=20=

far more harm to your case than aid.

Chris Van Cleve


On May 31, 2004, at 12:59 PM, jim Lagnese wrote:

>
> May be so, but you might as well try. If you circumvent them, she may=20=

> lose
> the whole Mac battle. At least get on record with a cogent argument=20
> and the
> facts. Work it up from there. Unfortunately, it's their sandbox.
> Jim
>
>
> --=20
> Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
> different result.
>
> Albert Einstein
>> Unfortunately I
>> don't see a whole lot of ways to inform them of the truth w/o them
>> losing face.
>>
>> On May 31, 2004, at 8:44 AM, jim Lagnese wrote:
>>> Actually there is one scenario where it=92s not just enabling DHCP =
to
>>> use the internet. They could be using a proxy server, one that does
>>> content filtering, and it could require authentication. Even if all
>>> you need is to have DHCP to connect, all they have to do is look at
>>> their DHCP leases and see who is connected. An increase of 14 would=20=

>>> be
>>> suspicious. On top of that, what if they limit the number of leases?
>>> They may have to increase their pool to allow you to surf. Not a big
>>> deal, but they would have to know.
>>>
>> --
>> Bryan Baker
>> President
>> Des Moines Macintosh Users Group
>> http://www.dmmug.org
>> president@dmmug.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dmmug mailing list
> Dmmug@dmmug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/dmmug
>
>