@thecreativeone91 said:
I wouldn't give it admin rights, I'd find a work around. Use Process Monitor to see what it needs. https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645.aspx
What's the harm of giving a single program like this admin rights? All it can do is scan, basically. What threat would that pose to the computer or network?
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
Yeah, you have a point. I'm not real good at separating myself in that way either.
It's a very common thing in IT. Either we take on a feeling of ownership of the network or of the finances or something else. IT people tend to look at what they do as something other than a job which causes problems that few other fields have.
We tend to be quite passionate people as a rule. I think when you have that level of passion that a sense of ownership just comes with it naturally.
@thecreativeone91 said:
Is this scanning to a file server to to the local device?
What you could try doing is pushing out a GPP to modify preferences of says My Documents\Scans or similar. so the permissions are less restrictive. You'd want to encourage them to remove the files from there though.
Personally I've always setup an SFTP server on the file server with virtual directory that point to their folder on the file server. This way the FTP server can only see the scans and is less of an issue of something gets mess up, and the FTP server technically has admin rights to the folders it since since it runs in a domain service account, but you can only access the virtual directories setup.
It's not a permissions issue on the folder, but the software. I've seen this before, and while the CC software is great in non-domain environments, or where people are local admins, in this type of situation it falls short...
@handsofqwerty said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember when it comes to licensing - this is not your money and not your problem. All you have to worry about is sticking to the proper licensing. If the firehouse has opted to do things in an expensive way, it is in no way your problem to fix. They made those decisions and those decisions are primarily around cost. They decided to save some money in the past in exchange for having to spend more in the future. That future is here and the problem is no one's but theirs.
Never skip licensing requirements because you don't want someone to have to pay them. You leave the realm of IT and there is no reason to do that. This doesn't impact you personally, don't take it on like it does. It's unfortunate that what they want to do isn't free, but it's not unfortunate for you.
Ok, that is a valid point.
This is a really tough one that IT people tend to someone take on emotionally. It's like we feel emotionally attached to the money or hate delivering bad news. Imagine a doctor or a car mechanic in the same position - they simply state how bad it is and give you the options. Sure, they try to save you money (mechanic - used parts from the junk yard or third party manufacturer; doctor - generic medicine or a lower cost procedure) but they don't take on the feeling of "oh, you shouldn't be THAT sick, let's work around the issue."
Learning to detach emotionally and still fight to find the right solution but limit the solutions to what you are allowed to do. Just look at it as any other constraint. It actually makes things easier because when you don't have the constraint of following the licensing you actually wade around in a large grey area where you could push the licensing envelope just a little more here or there and get this or that for it.
Yeah, you have a point. I'm not real good at separating myself in that way either.
But I'm working on it.
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember when it comes to licensing - this is not your money and not your problem. All you have to worry about is sticking to the proper licensing. If the firehouse has opted to do things in an expensive way, it is in no way your problem to fix. They made those decisions and those decisions are primarily around cost. They decided to save some money in the past in exchange for having to spend more in the future. That future is here and the problem is no one's but theirs.
Never skip licensing requirements because you don't want someone to have to pay them. You leave the realm of IT and there is no reason to do that. This doesn't impact you personally, don't take it on like it does. It's unfortunate that what they want to do isn't free, but it's not unfortunate for you.
Ok, that is a valid point.
This is a really tough one that IT people tend to someone take on emotionally. It's like we feel emotionally attached to the money or hate delivering bad news. Imagine a doctor or a car mechanic in the same position - they simply state how bad it is and give you the options. Sure, they try to save you money (mechanic - used parts from the junk yard or third party manufacturer; doctor - generic medicine or a lower cost procedure) but they don't take on the feeling of "oh, you shouldn't be THAT sick, let's work around the issue."
Learning to detach emotionally and still fight to find the right solution but limit the solutions to what you are allowed to do. Just look at it as any other constraint. It actually makes things easier because when you don't have the constraint of following the licensing you actually wade around in a large grey area where you could push the licensing envelope just a little more here or there and get this or that for it.
Yeah, you have a point. I'm not real good at separating myself in that way either.
Oh, and it's the MFC-L2700DW I'm assuming, right? You can tell it's a new model from Brother because they prefaced all their new model numbers (for lasers) with an L.
A workaround for this is to ensure that you always run the program as an admin, and you can set it up to save credentials for this one program to do that. Follow this to set it up:
http://www.howtogeek.com/124087/how-to-create-a-shortcut-that-lets-a-standard-user-run-an-application-as-administrator/
@g.jacobse said:
Question on Brother Scanning: MFC2700 / MFC 8480
Brother-USA can't exactly answer this issue. They direct it as a OS / Windows issue... I can't agree with that.
Domain Setup; MFC is on network.
Domain User: Unable to scan to network (%user\My Documents)
Domain Admin: Able to scan fine.
Local Admin: Able to scan fine.The Brother Utilities application starts normally. From there you are suppose to click on Control Center4 to launch the application to scan. However the Domain user it does not launch. Admin (local or domain) Control Center4 launches and will scan from the device fine.
Myself and two other persons have looked at this, adjusted the GPO of the domain and have not had any luck with it. Anyone have some suggestions?
I've seen this issue before. The issue is usually because the ControlCenter software won't run without admin creds. If it does, it doesn't always seem to have write permissions to the folder you specify for some odd reason. That's what I've seen.
@scottalanmiller said:
If they cared about the money they would not be running Windows XP still today. That's just silly. There has to be free options for this. Do the best job you can within the rules, but don't bend the rules on behalf of a client - this not only cheats the vendors who are supplying the parts (like MS) but also cheats other IT shops that are seen as more expensive because they follow the rules.
Yeah, that's true.
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember when it comes to licensing - this is not your money and not your problem. All you have to worry about is sticking to the proper licensing. If the firehouse has opted to do things in an expensive way, it is in no way your problem to fix. They made those decisions and those decisions are primarily around cost. They decided to save some money in the past in exchange for having to spend more in the future. That future is here and the problem is no one's but theirs.
Never skip licensing requirements because you don't want someone to have to pay them. You leave the realm of IT and there is no reason to do that. This doesn't impact you personally, don't take it on like it does. It's unfortunate that what they want to do isn't free, but it's not unfortunate for you.
Ok, that is a valid point.
@thecreativeone91 said:
@handsofqwerty said:
@Danp said:
Have you checked the status of your claim in the Resolution Center?
Yup, and I see no way to escalate it or contact PayPal.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_contact-phone
https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_contact-general
Thank you.
@IRJ said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@handsofqwerty said:
@IRJ said:
@Dashrender has a solid plan, but why not just demote and rebuild the VM? Of course that is assuming your DCs are just DCs and having nothing else on them.
Totally agree with this. I'd assume if he's looking to rename it's because there ARE other things on it.
It's not it's just someone improperly licensed it, as it's datacenter on a different server not licensed for Datacenter. It is only a DC with DHCP. But I want two DCs up at all times and the new DC I will be making will needs to have the Hostname that this DC does.
It's very easy to export DHCP scopes and settings.
Yeah, exactly. Or if it's not a complex setup, it might be just as easy to replicate the settings from scratch. It depends on what you have setup.
@thecreativeone91 said:
@handsofqwerty said:
They have the system running their doors on a legacy XP desktop that, if it died, they'd be unable to unlock/open doors. Their desktops are >all pretty old as well.
For the door system, initally P2V the machine to get it off the legacy hardware and move it to something like an HP Proliant Microserver with a RAID1You are likely going to run into licensing issues with this.
It wouldn't be a permanent solution. It'd just be to get it off the legacy hardware. Once it was, I could find a way to migrate it off to another OS, whatever that might have to be.
@thecreativeone91 said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Keep in mind doing this personally (especially if you don't have an LLC) you are taking a lot more personal liability than handing it over to @ntg
I just want to quote this for emphasis. It was what I was trying to get at earlier. If something goes wrong you are personally liable...
Not saying you will be negligent... but...
Well he is representing a company. So he has more than an LLC in this case.
He is? I know he will be for the printer installation, but what about for the actual hardware/software refresh? Is he representing himself or the company he works for at that point, has his company approved this labor?
Yeah, I don't think said retailer is involved in that portion of the work. That's out of their scope.
No, this would be through the retailer. But the ongoing support would not be. It'd be both too costly and not sufficient for them to have me do the ongoing support. I was discussing this with @Minion-Queen before. I can do the refresh cheaper than she would have to charge for, but the actual ongoing support would be cheaper through her.
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yeah, I don't think said retailer is involved in that portion of the work. That's out of their scope.
I've heard of them doing stuff way out of their depth before. This sounds normal to me. But I could easily be wrong.
They don't around here I know, I'm friends with the GM of said retailer. It's bench tech, home networking with SOHO routers and printers only.
I know that in the area where he is they used to do business stuff that was outside of that scope.
Yeah, the official scope has never limited our store. If it's in the realm of my abilities, I'll do it. Besides, from what I'm aware, nothing limits me to just SOHO equipment. Maybe somewhere something does, but that's never been how we worked, and I can do onsites for businesses, so it's not like I'm only allowed to do it for home users.
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Keep in mind doing this personally (especially if you don't have an LLC) you are taking a lot more personal liability than handing it over to @ntg
I just want to quote this for emphasis. It was what I was trying to get at earlier. If something goes wrong you are personally liable...
Not saying you will be negligent... but...
Well he is representing a company. So he has more than an LLC in this case.
He is? I know he will be for the printer installation, but what about for the actual hardware/software refresh? Is he representing himself or the company he works for at that point, has his company approved this labor?
My retailer would be well-compensated, I assure you.
@Danp said:
Have you checked the status of your claim in the Resolution Center?
Yup, and I see no way to escalate it or contact PayPal.
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
If we had some odd system, like an AS/400 or the like, then maybe I'd be more hesitant.
I don't understand how the platform in question for the target of the backups would change the willingness to depend on a non-released product.
Because when it's straight Windows, so no Exchange, SQL server, etc, I've never seen Unitrends have any issues, ever. It's usually more likely they have issues with the more peculiar systems, in my experience. They usually work out the most common systems issues earlier in development, from what I've seen. Some products have long-term issues, but it makes sense to make sure that the most common items work first.
@thecreativeone91 said:
@handsofqwerty said:
In the past, they have always given the product away as a template for Hyper-V or VMware. So you can setup the actual Unitrends install on either Hyper-V or VMware, and you can backup physical machines using it, but you cannot install the Unitrends Free directly onto physical hardware. Does that clear things up?
You can't backup physical machines either. (unless it's a windows machine and you pretend it's a hpyer-v server to back it up)
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
In the past, they have always given the product away as a template for Hyper-V or VMware. So you can setup the actual Unitrends install on either Hyper-V or VMware, and you can backup physical machines using it, but you cannot install the Unitrends Free directly onto physical hardware. Does that clear things up?
That doesn't match with the reasoning that @KatieUnitrends gave. She tied what it is running on to what it can backup.
So they are changing it? Currently with the UEB you can backup physical machines by installing the agent to the machine or even to a VM, to treat it as a physical machine. So that won't be an option anymore? That seems odd.