EUCPodcast

End User ComputingPodcast
The End User Computing Podcast (www.eucpodcast.com) live crowd chat!
2 years ago
#EUCPodcastEndUserComputingPodcastThe End User Computing Podcast (www.eucpodcast.com) live crowd chat!
2 years ago
#EUCPodcastEnd User ComputingPodcastThe End User Computing Podcast (www.eucpodcast.com) live crowd chat!
Eduardo Molina31
protect the data, not the device. Containers are becoming the normal thing on mobile OS and desktop OS
4 Votes Vote
Dwayne Lessner agree what containers for windows though? You consider laying == container
1 Votes Vote
Eduardo Molina sure layering is a type of containers, app-V, third party email clients
1 Votes Vote
Cláudio Rodrigues Yes but at one point protecting the data has to protect the device.
1 Votes Vote
Cláudio Rodrigues If I want to prevent people from reading an email app I must guarantee the device to lock all times. No way around that.
2 Votes Vote
Dwayne Lessner good point
1 Votes Vote
Barry Coombs @crod Build the lock policy into the mail app not the device?
1 Votes Vote
Eduardo Molina it depends on what industry you are, different industries = different requirements. The CIO wants less security for him but more for everybody else #wrong approach
1 Votes Vote
Cláudio Rodrigues sure. How many apps are like that today?
1 Votes Vote
Barry Coombs @crod thats built into a number of data sharing apps already
1 Votes Vote
Eduardo Molina @crod #good #worxmail #airwatch they all have email containers to protect the data without changing the device.
1 Votes Vote
Dan Brinkmann mobile OS's have been built with containers in mind, desktop OS not so much
1 Votes Vote
Alexander Ervik The whole issue is down to is the device private or not? Company issued = okay to controll - private = you have the choice! There are policies in place from country 2 country as well...
1 Votes Vote
Dan Brinkmann too much focus on extreme methods of protecting the data while ignoring the obvious and significantly easier
1 Votes Vote
Rory Monaghan How about Spoon.net. They state they are the containers for Windows and they are Open Source, also but app containers at the moment seem to have a very specific use case
0 Votes Vote
Cláudio Rodrigues Protecting the data is not the same as what I am saying. Encrypting/sandboxing is not what I am complaining about and certain things I do not see a way around it.
0 Votes Vote
Dan Brinkmann how many of your customers use 2FA? none of this matters if the password is weak
1 Votes Vote
Alexander Ervik Spoon.net is super cool! Good call! Easy to use, doesn't promise more than it does!
1 Votes Vote
Phillip Jones @dbrinkmann Seeing it in certain verticals pretty often
0 Votes Vote
Dan Brinkmann @P2Vme you can't claim security and use AD username/password as single auth method. seeing it often too, much less than 50% though
1 Votes Vote
stevegreenberg Containers are the right architecture for simplicity and efficiency, good to see them emerging in workable form finally
1 Votes Vote
Dan Brinkmann Microsoft Rights Management has protected documents for years, how many people use that in their organization?
0 Votes Vote
Eduardo Molina @dbrinkmann the problem with MRM is that you depend on the OS implementation, not all features are in all OS mobile or desktop.
1 Votes Vote
Dan Brinkmann most security is based on identity, its a consumer / enterprise issue we all deal with and one that i hope is addressed in my lifetime
1 Votes Vote
Dwayne Lessner good points dan
2 Votes Vote
Dan Brinkmann microsoft has published a SDK for mobile platforms, the problem is adoption, not the technology
1 Votes Vote
Rory Monaghan I think that's been the problem for decades, Dan. Microsoft tend to publish developer guidelines well in advance of making significant OS changes. Devs can't adjust quick enough or maybe they don't want to
1 Votes Vote
Dan Brinkmann I'll contend that its still a user adoption issue. it impacts the user experience and a high percent of data isn't worth it, therefore it doesn't represent enough financial incentive for organization to force it and software comp to develop to it
1 Votes Vote
Rory Monaghan One would expect that to change with so many companies paying 15 million+ for extended support on XP and the constant catch up with IE. Not forcing it is a costly endeavor, probably more so
1 Votes Vote
Dan Brinkmann obviously most companies believe that isn't true. Cash, Rules, Everything, Around, Me... C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar, dollar bill y'all
1 Votes Vote
Dane Young11
.@gilwood_cs just said PVS easier than MCS and no one argued. What?!?
0 Votes Vote
Maxime Breda pvs is more clear to use, no things under the hood like mcs
1 Votes Vote
Cláudio Rodrigues PVS is smart. MCS is dumb. For dumb people.
1 Votes Vote
Eduardo Molina I agree with @gilwood_cs, once you understand the big picture PVS is a lot simpler to manage and maintain.
1 Votes Vote
Rory Monaghan If you use MCS or PVS and deploy apps with App-V. Check out Bram Wolfs great App-V Scheduler tool. No large App-V Server setup required
1 Votes Vote
Alexander Ervik Agree with @crod MCS is the easy way out of mngmt of images, whereas PVS is more complex, but for a good reason!
1 Votes Vote
Phillip Jones @ervik @crod I don't see PVS as that much more complex personally...
1 Votes Vote
Eduardo Molina PVS is more complex just because it needs a couple more servers and a file share?
1 Votes Vote
Cláudio Rodrigues PVS is very simple. People make it complicated.
2 Votes Vote
Eduardo Molina @crod I agree, easier to explain linked clone updates
1 Votes Vote
Maxime Breda Pvs permit a better control on image lifecycle
1 Votes Vote
Phillip Jones10
VMware has a better track record with acquisitions and incorporating them than Citrix so far
1 Votes Vote
Dwayne Lessner -- who's killed off more? #negativeNanny
1 Votes Vote
Cláudio Rodrigues Not sure about that. Remember when they acquired the digital persona thing from RTO?
2 Votes Vote
John Furrier the Federation (EMC) knows how to buy and integrate
2 Votes Vote
Dwayne Lessner I was RTO customer at one time
2 Votes Vote
Cláudio Rodrigues ThinApp is another example. Never properly integrated.
1 Votes Vote
Dwayne Lessner thought it was odd App Volumes see shows as cloud volumes on the install,backwards compatibility i guess
1 Votes Vote
Andrew Wood if you're in the UK, come see the UK Citrix User Group 2nd April in Newcastle and hear about AppVolumes as one of a number of great app delivery technologies
0 Votes Vote
Rory Monaghan HP are the kinds of killing off Products. How about Dells vWorkspace, I haven't used it yet but the chatter around it makes it sound like the next coming of my boi, Jesus!
0 Votes Vote
Phillip Jones @Rorymon HP is where products go to die... haven't used vWorkspace yet either
0 Votes Vote
Maxime Breda6
Os management is a point, pain behind is manage all différent way to intégrate apps in os. Appv, thin app, local install, layering, app volume. Lot of techs to select
1 Votes Vote
Rory Monaghan Do you have a preference, yourself?
1 Votes Vote
Maxime Breda Yes for sure ;) for non persistent, pvs + appv. But interested by layering. For persistent, layering seems the solution.
1 Votes Vote
Rory Monaghan Even for Non-persistence layering is cool. Well, with Unidesk anyways. I guess if you own AppVolumes Standalone, it's some help but not as much
2 Votes Vote
Rory Monaghan I'm going stop mentioning Unidesk now!
1 Votes Vote
Maxime Breda Same for pvs, huge fan
0 Votes Vote