From: Conor on
On 20/04/2010 19:12, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:32:07 +0100, Conor<conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 20/04/2010 17:36, Rob wrote:
>>> Because: "We don�t support Macs because of problems with authentication
>>> and security", according to our (university) IT tech people.
>>>
>>> I could understand the support argument, but security and authentication?
>>>
>> Yes. They can't push patches and it relies on the user doing them rather
>> than them having a policy on that workstation/desktop/laptop which
>> allows them to push an update.
>
> That's not correct, there are indeed Apple tools to do patches and
> updates automatically and remotely.
>
Yes, all well and good but if its a Windows only house...

> This particular IT dept presumably won't have them though...
>
>> Windows is actually quite good in this
>> respect from an administration point of view.
>
> Yup.
And Apple too it would seem which is something I've learned today.



--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Gordon on
On Apr 20, 5:36 pm, Rob <patchoulianREM...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Because: "We don’t support Macs because of problems with authentication
> and security", according to our (university) IT tech people.
>
> I could understand the support argument, but security and authentication?
>
> I'd asked if I could have access to a Mac to do some blunt editing of a
> pdf - they're installing Acrobat Pro on the work PC.
>
> Rob

Because Adobe software doesn't have any security issues associated
with it at all :)

Sounds like your IT staff are a) Mac haters, b) incompetent to do the
job or c) both
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:55:19 +0100, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20/04/2010 19:12, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:32:07 +0100, Conor<conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/04/2010 17:36, Rob wrote:
>>>> Because: "We don�t support Macs because of problems with authentication
>>>> and security", according to our (university) IT tech people.
>>>>
>>>> I could understand the support argument, but security and authentication?
>>>>
>>> Yes. They can't push patches and it relies on the user doing them rather
>>> than them having a policy on that workstation/desktop/laptop which
>>> allows them to push an update.
>>
>> That's not correct, there are indeed Apple tools to do patches and
>> updates automatically and remotely.
>>
>Yes, all well and good but if its a Windows only house...

.... then they won't let Macs on the network. And the circle is
complete.

>> This particular IT dept presumably won't have them though...
>>
>>> Windows is actually quite good in this
>>> respect from an administration point of view.
>>
>> Yup.
>
>And Apple too it would seem which is something I've learned today.

The Apple tools are solid for remote admin/updates/patches/OS
configuration/proxy information and so on, but nothing like as
detailed in the user control area (Group Policy type stuff).

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Heisenberg may have slept here"
From: Conor on
On 21/04/2010 10:13, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:

> The Apple tools are solid for remote admin/updates/patches/OS
> configuration/proxy information and so on, but nothing like as
> detailed in the user control area (Group Policy type stuff).
>

I'll have a google and have a play.

--
Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:12:53 +0100, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote:

>On 21/04/2010 10:13, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>
>> The Apple tools are solid for remote admin/updates/patches/OS
>> configuration/proxy information and so on, but nothing like as
>> detailed in the user control area (Group Policy type stuff).
>>
>
>I'll have a google and have a play.

http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/newfeatures.html and related is
your first stop.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Shellfish are the prime cause of the decline of morals and the
adoption of an extravagant life style" -- Pliny the Elder