@stuartjordan said in GDPR Requiring Centralized Password Management:
@carnival-boy The basis of it is regarding personal data, but the outer layer is prevention, how are you protecting this personal data.
Maybe. But AD is GDPR compliant. It's a secure system, designed with security in mind, at least as far as GDPR is concerned. Using Post-It notes for password management might break GDPR regulations, AD won't.
I don't understand what user/password management has to do with GDPR. My understanding of GDPR is that relates to restrictions on personal data held by companies, and rules on reporting data breaches to authorities in a timely manner. Neither of these seem to relate to AD or similar services? AD doesn't even generally hold personal data.
@scottalanmiller said in Freelance websites?:
If you think about it, all these people are are failed MSPs that can't retain customers and are willing to work at literally any price. And logically, the only possible way for them to make any money at all is by doing the work really poorly. If they put in the time to do the job well, or know how to do the job well, then being on those sites would be a waste of their time.
@irj said in Freelance websites?:
ou also need to pay someone a decent rate as ones that's charge $20 an hour or less are useless
I've used one of these sites once, a few years ago, can't remember the name. I employed a guy in Bangladesh to do some InDesign work. It worked out fine.
It's a case of global labour arbitrage. $20 an hour in Bangladesh is a decent rate.
I don't know where you get the idea that a decent Bangladeshi freelancer must be a failed MSP. It's also a good way for decent IT people to earn extra money outside of their normal job. I'm charged out at about $1500 a day in my salaried day job, but would work for far less in my spare time (if I had any spare time!) as I don't have any costs - it's "money for jam" as we say in England.
I use Teams, OneNote and Sharepoint. Documentation in OneNote, then mange them via Teams, which creates the relevant Sharepoint sites in the background.
I like Teams, it takes a lot of the burden out of managing Sharepoint.
What kind and quantity of documentation are you looking at?
If you're only using SQL for a single, third-party application, you may be able to purchase a Runtime licence via the third-party, which is considerably cheaper. Its not something I've ever done, so don't know the specifics.
@scottalanmiller said in What are necessary/worthy/affordable tools for SMB?:
@dbeato said in What are necessary/worthy/affordable tools for SMB?:
I still see a lot of Enterprises still on Windows for desktops. I have known multiple government entities on other countries that have move to Linux but then go back to Windows so it is very strange.
Most seem to do so only after loads of corporate pressure from MS partners, though. You never see any saying that Linux wasn't a big success. Just that they are going back to Windows regardless of the success of the alternative. Meaning, they got paid to go back.
What do you mean paid to go back? I'd like to see some figures, but I'm pretty sure Windows dominates the enterprise market, just like it does SMB. If enterprises are as clued up as you claim, that suggest Windows is just better and\or cheaper.
Main reason for me to. It's like having your offsite backups stored at Bob's house, but only Bob has a key. I'd want a key, instead of having to always rely on Bob to let me in. Especially if Bob has history of messing me around.
@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft Managed Services:
Windows 10 is "free" for all intents and purposes for home use now.
How is it free? Upgrades for the lifetime of the hardware may be free now, but you still effectively pay a licence fee for every new Windows machine you buy, don't you?
I see a disconnect between phones which are generally rented (for both businesses and consumers) for a couple of years and then upgraded (at least here in the UK), and PCs which are generally bought and kept for 5 years or more. I can see why Microsoft (and HP and Dell) would like PCs to adopt the phone business model which is making Apple so rich by persuading consumers to replace their perfectly good iPhones with near identical new models every 2 years because they're under a 2 year contract and so the upgrade feels like it's free (same monthly fee).
I suspect this is more about selling more Surfaces, or helping Dell and HP sell more PCs, rather than further monetising Windows ((although like I said above, Microsoft get a licence fee for every new Windows PC sold). They also need to get to the stage where replacing a PC, and migrating all your settings, applications and files, is as simple as replacing a phone, which is currently isn't anywhere near. One of the main reasons businesses don't upgrade their PCs more often is the sheer hassle of the upgrade process, rather than the cost of the new hardware. This initiative seems to be addressing that problem.
It's included in our O365 subscription so there is no cost or licensing issues. I'm not sure what you mean by overhead of management. What kind of performance and end user problems have you experienced?
Thanks. I've a pretty good understanding of SharePoint. My purpose for this thread is to try and get some examples of real-world experiences, both good and bad, when dealing with a large number of documents.
I've used it for quite for a few years now, but not at large scale. As @scottalanmiller said, "I like SharePoint conceptually, but not in practice". Well, what are the issues in practice?
We're a small company (about 20 employees), so don't have departments or any kind of hierarchy. Everyone has access to everything. If we use Teams to create a team for each client, then Teams will create a separate SharePoint site for each one, so yeah, we'd end up with each client having their own site, and sub-folders within that.
I'm looking at introducing SharePoint at work and moving the majority of our file server to SharePoint Online. The main goals of this are:
I don't have experience of using SharePoint with large numbers of files. I use ODfB (which basically is SharePoint) extensively for my personal files and find it pretty flaky, but that's just issues with the sync client rather than the SP site itself.
I will definitely be using folders and not relying on metadata. I don't care what people say about Microsoft advising to not use folders, I've tried relying just on metadata and think it sucks. Folders for the win every time. We have a folder for each client, and sub-folders under that. About 50 clients, 400GB of data and about a million files (mostly Office files). The data is pretty static and archival - we don't have many concurrent projects (and so not many concurrent or new files). I will probably keep our mapped folders and just map them to SharePoint rather than file shares because that is what everyone is used to, although I'd like to think people will transition to Teams for everything in the long term.
Reading through some old SharePoint threads on ML I see a lot of love in 2015 and a lot of hate in 2018, which puzzles me. To quote from 2015:
@minion-queen said in Sharepoint:
We use SharePoint for all our client data and our custom helpdesk right now. In 30 days we will be moving to Dynamics CRM so it will be even more important then.
We have been using SharePoint for years and can't imagine a company of any size not wanting to use it.
@scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint:
My favourite features of SP are the easy ones: really powerful document library system, remote mappable drives, central database for metadata, easy to use searchable wiki, lists.
@scottalanmiller said in Sharepoint - how do you use it?:
We've been using SharePoint internally at NTG since the original 2003 release. We went 2003, 2007 and 2010 all hosted internally. Then we went to 2010 hosted with Rackspace and then 2013 with Office 365. So we've been using it a long time. We use it for everything, once you get used to it you will be addicted. It is really amazing once you start to leverage it as your central repository for everything.
It sounds awesome. Then in 2018, the mood seems to change:
@dbeato said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@dashrender said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Anyone here know of a company that completely ditched local fileshares and moved wholly to ODfB and Sharepoint?
We had two customers that did that, and they regretted it. That's because I know it first hand. I have a lot of customers with Dropbox and NextCloud.
@scottalanmiller said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@dashrender said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Anyone here know of a company that completely ditched local fileshares and moved wholly to ODfB and Sharepoint?
We wanted to but it wasn't good. We went to Nextcloud instead, which is way more enterprise than ODfB.
@scottalanmiller said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
@momurda said in SharePoint Online as a File Server:
Is anybody in the world happy with Sharepoint Online or OneDrive for Business?
I cant think of two worse 'solutions' for file storage/sharing.Not of which I am aware. I like SharePoint conceptually, but not in practice.
I appreciate we could be talking about slightly different things - the sync client in ODfB and SharePoint itself, but I get the feeling @scottalanmiller has fallen out of love with SharePoint, is that fair?
My bosses are reluctant to transition to SharePoint, so I'd be putting my neck on the line, and I'm not sure I want to do that.
Give me some more of your experiences with SharePoint please. And where you've had issues, please give some details of what those issues were. I'm hoping that because we primarily work with Office files, and don't have any large Autodesk engineering drawings or Adobe graphics files (for example), the experience will be pretty good. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I'm looking for feedback from out in the field.
Thanks!
@jaredbusch said in Routers Vs. Firewall:
But a router is never only a router in today's world. Every single router is a router and a firewall.
Yes, but a device that is both a router and a firewall does not mean that a router is a firewall (and vice versa), it just means that the two products are generally interchangeable and indistinguishable in the real world.
Saying "Every single router is a router and a firewall." is different from saying "Every single router is a firewall"
So I'm kind of with the boss, on a purely abstract, pedantic level. I guess that makes me "sub-intern" :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: Oh well, I've been called worse on here.
@scottalanmiller said in The Bad Windows Update Career Dance:
So I wonder, how many people are suddenly out of work because their management blames them for Windows updates.
I'm guessing none. Though the US are a bit more aggressive at hiring and firing than us Europeans.
What do you call bench work? I'm not sure what the definition is. What typical bench work would be carried out in an SMB?
I used to outsource basic IT tasks, which I guess would be classed as bench work, for about £100 per hour ($140). Five hours a week of that for 46 weeks a year is just over $30k a year. You can employ decent IT staff for that price in the UK and that gives you 40 hours a week instead of 5.
£100 per hour may seem expensive, but I couldn't find anyone that would do it cheaper locally. That was often an hour at a time, so represented two hours when you include travel to and from our site (we only paid for time on-site).
@matteo-nunziati , yeah that was always my problem. Managing bench workers was so time-consuming that it was nearly always quicker just to do the bench work myself.
@tim_g said in SQL Virtulization:
@carnival-boy said in SQL Virtulization:
No. By your logic, the President and Vice President of the US should always travel in the same plane, because less planes, the less chance of failure and loss of life.
That's not how it works.
Check out this article:
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/05/when-no-redundancy-is-more-reliable/
I don't need to read an essay to understand probability. The probability of a single SQL server suffering from physical failure is the same regardless of whether or not other servers share the same box.
If I get in a car, the probability of me being in accident does not go down the more passengers there are.
You and I seem to have a different concept of defining system stability, so I'm not sure I can add anything else.
@tim_g said in SQL Virtulization:
Otherwise, you'd have 25-100 physical servers. The chance of failure and data loss go through the roof in comparison to a single server.
No. By your logic, the President and Vice President of the US should always travel in the same plane, because less planes, the less chance of failure and loss of life.
But we're not talking about 25-100 physical servers. We're talking about one physical server, with one SQL Server. How does virtualising that increase stability? How does keeping it physical mean being reckless?
And just saying not following best practice is reckless isn't an answer. Explain why. What risk are you introducing? Remember, the probability of physical failure is identical.