Which Network Management Software to go for...?

[webman]

Tomato/tomato

[Geoff]

And do people prefer to build linux boxes themselves or use Karoshi?

My current build process for a Linux box is:

Stick Ubuntu 6.06 LTS Server on it.
Do the boring things all Linux boxes need on them (samba, winbind, nscd, ntp).

Then either download, compile, and install whatever server software the box will be using or install the distro version of the server software. This really depends on how 'new' I need the software to be.

For example, On our LAMP box I'm using stock apache2, php5, mysql5 because I don't need anything newer than what's avalible in the repoisitories.. However I download and compile cacti, nagios and moodle myself.

[ajbritton]

I think that all anyone can do is put forward why they use the system they do and take the opportunity to be interest in how others do it ... and then people can say "have you considered" instead of "what is the point ... you should do it like this!"

Hear hear.

Maybe we need an 'I came hear for an argument' forum where we can 'take it outside'...

[NetworkGeezer]

In all the ruckus of the RM vs vanilla flame fest, the NetSupport users haven't said what they get over and above superlative remote session control.

It was a genuine question. Now that Ranger is being Borged into RM and Class Link seems a non-starter just wondered if there are any alternative management layer solutions availible.

[GrumbleDook]

Wait for Longhorn and use the new version of Learning Network Manager? That is if the one guy who built the old version actually gets time to do it.

[adent]

My Fourpenneth

Network Management Software is an expensive waste of time.

The vanilla operating system does everything you need. For additional stuff like printer accounting and classroom management you then have a choice - rather than being locked into the Network Management 'tick in the box'

When it comes to software patches and OS upgrades - third party management software just gets in the way - and then you will have to PAY for the upgrade to support it.

Who can justify the additional licensing for Management Software when there is a wealth of free material and support forums on using the vanilla management tools that you have ALREADY paid for?

[CyberNerd]

Isn't the entire sellingpoint of Windows server that it has an easy to use interface to lock everything down, patch management, software deployment etc? - the things that are more difficult to do for free with Samba/Linux + login scripts. You justified buying a windows infrastructure because its easy to use and I'd find it difficult to justify paying for another layer of software that doesn't do something radically different from what you've already paid for. IMO if you want to spend money then spend it on training.

[ajbritton]

IMO if you want to spend money then spend it on training.

<Devils Advocate>

Yeah, spend a load of money putting someone through their MCSE then 6 months later they are off to a higher paying job in industry. School is left with a custom system that nobody else can manage.

</>

[beeswax]

IMO if you want to spend money then spend it on training.

<Devils Advocate>

Yeah, spend a load of money putting someone through their MCSE then 6 months later they are off to a higher paying job in industry. School is left with a custom system that nobody else can manage.

</>

..er..your school pays for training?
on a serious note, schools are going to have a problem as techies try to get funded training before BSF hits, and then jump. so don't spend any money on them. keep them in penury. encourage them to have large families, after all, they won't have a pension when they retire so they'll need someone to support them. after a while just the electric sound of the whip crackling through the air will be enough to restore order. no need for actual violence. mental cruelty is so much more satisfying, don't you think?

[adent]

IMO if you want to spend money then spend it on training.

<Devils Advocate>

Yeah, spend a load of money putting someone through their MCSE then 6 months later they are off to a higher paying job in industry. School is left with a custom system that nobody else can manage.

</>

So pay em what they are obviously worth! - you still save if you compare it with the license fees people are shoveling into the hands of the software houses for management software that
a) breaks and
b) stops you being in control of your software change management policy.


Sheesh! Why is it that people think techies should be treated like mushrooms?

[witch]

Further to all this - which are the same 'discussion' points raised when I asked the same question a couple of weeks ago - please note that the original questioner is a part-timer, like me, and would probably not have the time to suss out how to do it all on a vanilla, never mind the time to do it AND all the rest of the stuff in 12 hours a week.
And as for training - it just doesnt exist for a lot of us, especially those down at the primary/part-time level.

[GrumbleDook]

IMO if you want to spend money then spend it on training.

<Devils Advocate>

Yeah, spend a load of money putting someone through their MCSE then 6 months later they are off to a higher paying job in industry. School is left with a custom system that nobody else can manage.

</>

So pay em what they are obviously worth! - you still save if you compare it with the license fees people are shoveling into the hands of the software houses for management software that
a) breaks and
b) stops you being in control of your software change management policy.


Sheesh! Why is it that people think techies should be treated like mushrooms?

Unfortunately not all schools will pay what people are worth ... only what they can afford.

Given a choice between a few thousand more for a teachie and a few thousand more to get a teacher on UPS2 rather than someone lower down the scale ... they will go for the teacher most times.

Likewise, that few thousand could be the books for a department, or it could mean sending people on training ...

Managing money in schools is difficult and every few hundred pounds that can be ploughed into a teaching department is very important.

[bossman]

GrumbleDook:

Managing money in schools is difficult and every few hundred pounds that can be ploughed into a teaching department is very important.

Not when teachers spend considerable amouts of money on ICT resources without notifying their professional ICT counterparts and therefore waste valuable monies and it just gets written off.

Case in question "quizdom interactive software" everyone else in school uses activstudio but not our head of english he wanted something just to be different. Without prior consultation on requirements he went ahead and bought it at £2000+ and then found out that it was a stand-alone version as they did not support a network version.

He wants it to work on the network as he bought it for all the english dept. When i told him that he couldn't have it on the network but just on his laptop as a standalone version he was non too pleased. He knows he has dropped a clanger and a big one at that.

I don't agree with what you are saying GrumbleDook and i think a lot of other people would argue that too. There is nobody more focused on keeping costs to a bare minimum than the IT departments in schools and they probably get the worst budgets compared to the teachers who just spend for the sake of spending because they have the funds.

[GrumbleDook]

I think that my comment to Andy has been taken out of context here ...

I am stating how it is in schools ... not how it should be. We have done lots of things to stop white elephants being bought and know exactly what you mean about things like Quizdom ... we have a department who went out and purchased one since that is what we use here anyway ... but they ended up paying the full price and not the discounted one I had arranged for future purchases ... so their budget lost out ... and the money saved would have been able to be used for additional resources that they also wanted.

All I am saying is that most Heads / Bursars / Business Managers will look at the staffing and decide that paying more for more more experienced teachers will take a priority over technicians' pay, and this can also be the case when funding the annual spend for departments ... by skimping a little on pay they might have more in the pot for books, maintenance of pitches ...

I wish it was different ... I am lucky with the staffing I have and the budget I have too ... but not everyone is that lucky. I am lucky that when budget forms are filled in anything remotely technical (and sometimes electrical) gets passed by me so that we limit the number of mistakes staff make. Last year we had a department saying they needed 3 more projectors as they were short ... the HoD then remembered (upon prompting) that the mobile classrooms were not going to have projectors permanently mounted and that the 3 rooms in question had projectors that got locked away each night .. something that had been requested the previous year.

Unfortunately if someone gains more qualifications they may not get a pay rise ... they may be paid for what they do as it is ... and the course / qual may just make them more efficient ...

There are lots of arguements both ways but ICT is just a fraction of the whole budget ... and the Head / Business Manager have to balance things carefully. Andy saying that they should just be paid more because they have another qual is something that is unlikely to happen ...

[bossman]

I truly understand what you are saying GrumbleDook and i take on board the statement you made

I am stating how it is in schools ... not how it should be

But that then begs the question, why have things not been changed to "how it should be" or is this too little a point to labour?

I feel very strongly about this as my pay awards have been held off for 4 years even though i have saved the school upwards of £70,000. Do you think a teacher could do this for the school? I think not but then that is my own thoughts on this and no one elses.

As for a bursar or business manager all they would be interested in is the accounts and if they tally, not the specific needs of a department i.e. ICT running costs and static costs.

If they didn't pay Teachers quite as much as they did for quite frankly poor service in some cases (only some may i add not all) then there may be some truth in your argument GrumbleDook but as i personally see it this is not the case.

Teachers have a good union and good teachers are hard to come by, but they are always the first in line for pay rises etc. Only the other week in the TES did i read an article which was written by a Head Teacher of a college that no one really takes a look at the other staff members in a school as they are second class citizens in the whole scheme of things, they are only "support staff" and he says in this rticle that it is about time that the government educationalists should realise this and pay them accordingly.

BTW GrumbleDook this is in no way a pesonal attack on your views or personage, but the whole structure of the educational system which i find is archaic to say the least and like the "Home Office" is due a clean out from top to bottom to bring it into the 21st century and not the 18th in which it still lingers.