Don't bother, exclude your hypervisor's from stupid convention.

If you had hundreds of them,then yeah.. but just a handful...

@magicmarker said in Obtaining hardware from terminated remote employee:

@Pete-S said in Obtaining hardware from terminated remote employee:

@magicmarker said in Obtaining hardware from terminated remote employee:

When a remote employee is terminated how do you handle the collection of the hardware (laptop, docking station, printer, etc..)? In the new company I work for, almost 60% of the workforce is working from home throughout the US. Our HR department is out-sourced, but we have 1 main in-house employee that does HR tasks to help bridge the gap between the out-sourced HR service and internal employees. Employees are typically terminated over the phone by their managers. The IT department is then tasked with the collection of the hardware. This includes contacting the terminated employee over a personal email, or personal cell phone number. We are also tasked with working with the shipping manager to prepare a pre-paid shipping label and box to ship the equipment to the employee’s residence to send back the hardware.

It’s been a major challenge getting hardware back from the terminated employees. For obvious reasons, the fired employees are hard to get ahold of, and are difficult to work with. We are sending 1,2, 3 emails and/or calling the employee multiple times.

When the IT department proposed the holding the paycheck to VP’s until the hardware is returned, we were told it’s illegal. In all my previous companies I’ve never had to worry about this. This was always handled by HR or the fired managers employee. Is this normal? How can I get this task off our plate and worry about more important IT related tasks?

It's really easy. You should just follow the company's written procedure how to handle the equipment of terminated employees.

If the procedure isn't working, management needs to change it or just accept that they wont get the equipment back.

Because why should the fired employee even bother with packing and shipping back the company's used equipment? They don't work there anymore. You need either a stick or a carrot to convince them and right now it's neither.

The company has no written procedure. Can anyone point me to where I can find a template for this?

Rather than a template on this it might be worth understanding the rules regarding this.

Sorry that may be a paywall, it loaded one minute and now that I'm relooking at it. . .

 An employer cannot withhold a terminated employee's paycheck until equipment is returned. ... An employer might be able to deduct the cost of the equipment from the final pay of non-exempt employees. The specific circumstances of the situation and state wage deduction laws will determine whether an employer can do this.`

@bnrstnr said in Good Specs to Build a Gaming PC (asking for a friend):

Do they have anything at all to reuse? Case, power supply, SSD? Because sometimes you can get significantly more powerful components when you can save a few hundred on stuff like that.

Who needs a computer case? Just pizza-box that sucker and move on.

@hobbit666 said in Securing SSH:

@JaredBusch said in Securing SSH:

This is your friend.

ssh-copy-id -i ~/.ssh/id_ed25519.pub user@ip

command not found in powershell bu that's a windows problem.

That's because windows doesn't have an ssh-copy-id function. You're expected to know to manually copy the file into .ssh

@G-I-Jones said in Group Policy points to wrong DC:

Are your DCs in the same physical site ( NOT separated by WAN or VPN)? If so, then yes, Main DC and backup DC should be in the same site.

So it sounds like there isn't a way to choose the DC that Group Policy reads from. Or at least set a priority for one.

Correct, as every DC is a "master" you can choose where a role resides, but they are supposed to be equal.

To ask, can't you install .net on linux? Maybe the vendor is just being lazy or there is just some functionality that isn't in the linux version so it doesn't work there.

@CCWTech said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@DustinB3403 said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

To ask, can't you install .net on linux? Maybe the vendor is just being lazy or there is just some functionality that isn't in the linux version so it doesn't work there.

Yes, they specifically said that they will never do .NET on linux because they would have to 'completely re-write' their software. The windows version is .net but in linux they built it on mono.

Gotcha, so they are being lazy or don't have the capability any more to update the code on linux.

@black3dynamite said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

Why can’t they start developing on .net core instead since that will be the one that is equally being developed Microsoft for Windows, Mac and Linux?

Because they either don't have the desire or the talent.

@CCWTech said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@CCWTech said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@black3dynamite said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

Why can’t they start developing on .net core instead since that will be the one that is equally being developed Microsoft for Windows, Mac and Linux?

They can. They are just unwilling to put the effort in apparently.

They can solve this by updating their system requirements. At least people are warned that it's not great software any longer: https://docs.connectwise.com/ConnectWise_Control_Documentation/Get_started/System_requirements

That should be pretty obviously from their Windows "Server Requirements list"

To ask, why are you looking at ConnectWise instead of MeshCentral? Does MC not support your client devices?

Their documentation from Dec of 2019 shows 2012 R2 as the most current supported OS for up to 10,000+ agents.

@CCWTech Are you sure you aren't paying to be able to continue to have access to your deployed version?

I'm not trying to defend them here at all, just asking what does your "yearly maintenance" actually include?

@CCWTech said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@DustinB3403 said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@CCWTech Are you sure you aren't paying to be able to continue to have access to your deployed version?

I'm not trying to defend them here at all, just asking what does your "yearly maintenance" actually include?

Yes, but it is supposed to include product development as well.

Again, not defending these people, but does it say that anywhere?

Legality refers to something passed into law (in our case by congress). EULA are simply an agreement between you and in this case Microsoft.

It gives MS an easy opportunity if it wanted to take you to court for damages or to make you stop doing something you've been doing.

The two are not at all related. You can use Windows 10 to act as a server, but you are not allowed to. It is also not illegal to use Windows 10 as a server (because congress isn't going to be passing any laws regarding this).

@CCWTech said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@DustinB3403 said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

Legality refers to something passed into law (in our case by congress). EULA are simply an agreement between you and in this case Microsoft.

It gives MS an easy opportunity if it wanted to take you to court for damages or to make you stop doing something you've been doing.

The two are not at all related. You can use Windows 10 to act as a server, but you are not allowed to. It is also not illegal to use Windows 10 as a server (because congress isn't going to be passing any laws regarding this).

There are laws that handle civil (tort) cases. Against the law doesn't mean a criminal act. It applies to civil (tort) actions as well.

So yes, it's illegal, but no 12 angry men in black pajamas won't be kicking in your door.

Right, but tort law "is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another", not directly related the the EULA.

The tort in this case would possibly be that Connectwise is omitting/plainly stating "it's fine" even when the EULA doesn't actually allow you to use a desktop OS as a server.

To which their defense would likely be "they agreed to the EULA, not us, therefore they should know what is and isn't allowed"

@IRJ said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@Dashrender said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

Short of an audit by Microsoft specifically where they look at use, nothing will likely ever happen.

Exactly

Just because you may never have any negative consequences of doing this, doesn't mean you should still do it. .

@IRJ said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@DustinB3403 said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@IRJ said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@Dashrender said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

Short of an audit by Microsoft specifically where they look at use, nothing will likely ever happen.

Exactly

Just because you may never have any negative consequences of doing this, doesn't mean you should still do it. .

So don't do it. Don't go around tattling on people to Microsoft either.

I don't think anyone was tattling to Microsoft (at least not that I saw in this thread). But there are reward programs from Microsoft for just this sort of thing.

It could be in my interest to send that to MS just to be potentially rewarded. Not that I care in this argument, I neither have any evidence of this (besides this topic) nor am I motivated.

@IRJ said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

@DustinB3403 said in Connectwise Control / Screenconnect recommends you break the law to run their software:

I don't think anyone was tattling to Microsoft (at least not that I saw in this thread). But there are reward programs from Microsoft for just this sort of thing.

Please tell me the crime?

It doesn't need to be a crime, for fuck's sake. A crime has laws around it. An EULA issue isn't a crime, it , the EULA, simply allows two entities know what they can and cannot do with regards to what the hell ever.

MS would have to take the end user to court if they did this themselves. If ConnectWise is selling this as a turnkey solution, then MS could very easily take ConnectWise to court for violating the EULA that they agree'd to when they setup said turnkey.

Since this is a paid solution we're discussing it would be very easy to draw a line of responsibility to the vendor of said system who was violating the EULA.

In any scenario, the suggestion of doing something that violates the EULA, isn't illegal, just shady as all fuck. Because it's putting their customers on the hook to make their TCO look cheaper than it actually is at whatever scale is being discussed.

Which in a conversation like this one, with ConnectWise going up from 1000-10000+ devices is a lot of Device CALs a business could just skip out on purchasing (because who's actually checking, right?)

Well that would be a lot of reasons for Microsoft to come knocking on your door and audit you.