Possible Refresh for Local Firehouse
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@coliver said:
If I remember correctly there is no way to properly license a virtual instance of XP.
XP Mode running under a Windows 7 VM?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@coliver said:
If I remember correctly there is no way to properly license a virtual instance of XP.
XP Mode running under a Windows 7 VM?
That's what I was thinking. Ideally, if I can just move the system onto a Windows 7 or above machine natively, I'll do that.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@coliver said:
If I remember correctly there is no way to properly license a virtual instance of XP.
XP Mode running under a Windows 7 VM?
That makes it easier. But you will still need the proper virtualization licenses for WIndows 7.
