@scottalanmiller said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

@guyinpv said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

The liability is if his business ever suffers a data loss or data theft or even remote hacks, that nobody can point a finger at me thinking it must have come through my access. If that is just tin foil thinking, then ya, I'd much rather have full access any time, as needed.

Bottom line is people will lie and blame you anyway. Might as well at least be useful and have auditing. Otherwise, how do you even prove that you didn't have access? They'll just say that you did.

This is true. The person in question is a good dude, I'm just being overly paranoid probably.

I am also a sucker for tools. I like to play with new things, especially if they are free!

Speaking of that, what's the best free option for Win Essentials anyway?

@scottalanmiller said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

@guyinpv said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

I could create some kind of dedicated jump box that only I have access to which then allows me in to various things over local network. Not sure how this works. Is it Linux? Can I still use the Windows VM gui?

We use LInux. What is a Windows VM GUI?

I just mean if I use Linux, Ubuntu or something, can I still use the Windows GUI or would I be stuck with command line stuff?
Do you use a GUI on Linux? Mint or something? Fedora? I just mean I want full desktop access to Windows.

@scottalanmiller said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

@guyinpv said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

I could combine the above and just use normal Windows Remote Desktop, but I would have to maintain my own user account on the server,

How else do you audit the access? You need a CAL regardless as you are a user.

Win Essentials here.

@scottalanmiller said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

@guyinpv said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

And all this needs set up in a way where the owner has to grant access so that I don't have any-time access for liability reasons.

I don't agree here. I think that that is silly. Good controls and he knows if you have accessed or not. If you dont have those, you have the liability regardless. If he has to grant you access, how will he do that when things are broken? Often it'll mean that you can't get in when needed.

Of course true.

The liability is if his business ever suffers a data loss or data theft or even remote hacks, that nobody can point a finger at me thinking it must have come through my access. If that is just tin foil thinking, then ya, I'd much rather have full access any time, as needed.

All of this is great but how does it play out?

Small business with dynamic IP.

6 workstations and a copier that use the server.

1 server running file shares and 1 business app, Windows Server, on XenServer.

Dell hardware, iDRAC available if wanted.

Always trying to stick to free stuff, of course.

I could always use TeamViewer to one of the workstations and use XC from there, or XO installed on another VM.

I could install some remote software on the individual VM though I need to deal with router/IP issues depending on the software.

I could create some kind of dedicated jump box that only I have access to which then allows me in to various things over local network. Not sure how this works. Is it Linux? Can I still use the Windows VM gui?

And all this needs set up in a way where the owner has to grant access so that I don't have any-time access for liability reasons.

TeamViewer needs license for business so maybe I can use VNC software? I could do the ZeroTier thing if that is completely safe and transparent to all operations.

I could combine the above and just use normal Windows Remote Desktop, but I would have to maintain my own user account on the server, or be given admin credentials as needed.

Lots of options. Unsure about standard practices.

This seems like such a basic use case.
Assuming my ONLY option now is to show up physically at the office. What is the very next best thing? Probably at least direct remote access to the VM itself. But if I can't leave TeamViewer on there, and can't use Remote Desktop without credentials and opening firewall. What's the next option?

@BRRABill said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

@Dashrender said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

XC won't give you access to the console on the server if there is a problem during say, bootup. XC and XO only work as long as XS is working.

Yes if there is some sort of boot or POST error, you are driving there.

I never used to put iDrac on servers, but after using it a few times, I'll never buy/support one without it now.

Wouldn't you want a dedicate IP (and NIC?) for it and have to open up the firewall and everything? How do you maintain access for dynamic IPs from the ISP?
I have two servers with iDRAC, just never played with it yet.

@scottalanmiller said in Web Application VS Windows Application:

@guyinpv said in Web Application VS Windows Application:

I think it's just the principle of the thing.

Less fluff means smaller, faster, easier to distribute, fewer dependencies to test/update or that can potentially introduce security leaks or be hacked or become outdated.

I'm thinking that it is more like virtualization.... standard abstraction layers add "more stuff" but in standard ways that make development, stability and security easier.

In theory.

I don't think tools like Electron are this "standard" yet. Could be wrong. I've had plenty of "websites in a box" apps crash on me and do stupid things, screwy UIs and other bugs.

I'm sure they will improve. I'm looking forward to trying Electron myself. I just don't have a project yet!

Come to think of it, I'll probably install Xen Center on the owner's desktop. If needed I could gain remote access to that box and use XC from there. I don't suppose I would require remote access to iDRAC at all.

I guess what I was thinking is that I could install a 2nd VM as a kind of monitoring/remote control box that I could use, perhaps XO or something else. But again I don't think I should give myself absolute control like this without some action on the part of the owner. Nor do I really want to start opening ports on the router.

@scottalanmiller said in Web Application VS Windows Application:

@guyinpv said in Web Application VS Windows Application:

Removing all that fluff can have its advantages. Especially for little utility apps with simple purposes.

Outside of specifically maintaining an OS, which is a unique thing as it's neither business software (it's IT) nor does it have the possibility of being cross platform, what kind of apps do you see taking advantage of this?

I think it's just the principle of the thing.

Less fluff means smaller, faster, easier to distribute, fewer dependencies to test/update or that can potentially introduce security leaks or be hacked or become outdated.

To me this is one of those questions like, why not just get the vehicle with the big frame and all the horsepower and lights and hydrolics? If gas is cheap and they can afford it, why not?
On the other hand, if all you need is to get from A to Z, the expensive gas gets annoying, possibly a liability.

I'm old school. I still have "768 megs of RAM yeah!" mindset, where everything should be highly optimized and using as few resources as possible.
People nowadays don't care for that, it's just "I got lotsa RAM, bring on the fluff! Who cares!"

To each his own. There always seems to be sacrifice between convenience and optimization.

@scottalanmiller said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:

What about Google Chrome Remoting?

The tool doesn't matter. It depends on the issue. What if it's the case that the VM is down but Xen is accessible? I could fix it that way if I had access to Xen.

@Dashrender I find that TeamViewer is pretty easy to walk people through for that sort of thing.

I'm thinking of things like, would it be wise to put another VM on it running Xen Orchestra and then enable a connection to that? Maybe that's overkill for something I may only ever access a few times.

I guess at a certain level I'm wondering if I should give myself access to Xen, or just to the VM(s), or both?

@Dashrender

Well I use Thunderbird

I am not an MSP nor do I currently do contracts for maintenance or anything like that.
When I get called, it's usually onsite. I don't leave remote control software permanently installed or anything like that.
(I want to do these things in the future, but don't now)

I'm wondering what the best method is to be able to remote control a system but in a way where it requires user interaction and control. I don't want apps on my computers or phone or anything and create an liabilities.

For example a small business has a Zen server with one VM. I'm not sure I want access via iDRAC, but maybe I do? Maybe I want access to Zen, maybe not? Maybe I just want access to the VM itself, but only when needed?

Is there an acceptable method for break/fix scenarios where I can just have them do this or that or run something and THEN I get the control I need?
Or is it better that I set this up so I can gain control even without their interaction? This seems like something of a liability if we don't have a contract of sorts. They may tell me it's ok to have this access, but that doesn't mean I want to.

Do I leave some kind of program on there dormant in case I need to tell them to open it? Do I leave myself a user account? Even that seems iffy to me.

I'm wondering what is not only a good practice, but is legally sound and what tools this would use. As an example, their external IP could change, so if I'm not running some tool to reveal the IP to me, this already means I need to get info from the client before I could get in.

@scottalanmiller said in Web Application VS Windows Application:

@guyinpv said in Web Application VS Windows Application:

If you want to do both, as is popular these days, look into crossover frameworks like Meteor, Electron, or Cordova for mobile as well.

Just web apps running locally It's not really a crossover. You can do all of the same stuff without those frameworks using web apps. The web server can be local.

What do you mean by "web apps" then? Cause I'm just referring to websites, essentially.

And I've never seen a web page able to put itself into system startup, maintain account auth auto-login, have a system tray icon and use native notifications and access deeply into the file system. I don't think Greenshot can work as a web app. I don't know how well web apps can create system-wide keyboard shortcuts as well.

One thing I hate is how bloated these "websites in a frame" apps are. Programs that should normal take 30 or 40MB have to take 180MB just for all the fluff.

I don't really buy it that you have the opposite experience with web interfaces, that they are MORE solid than native desktop. How can that be? It's dependent not only on the speed of the app server, but also the browser, and your ISP bandwidth, etc, things a native app may not have to deal with.

Heck just using my online Outlook mail (actually Hotmail) is buggy. Often it won't delete as fast as I can go through messages. The interface dies and says I should reload the page. I run Sweep and it takes 15 seconds to find and delete 8 messages, etc.
My Yahoo mail is even worse, often parts of the entire UI just go blank. Or something refreshes the page and I'm in a different part of the screen or another folder, etc.
Even though the web app has certain control over the keyboard, there have been times when I'm typing and hit <backspace> only to have the entire page go back in browser history!

But again, I'm not saying websites or web apps or whatever you want to call them, are wrong or bad or insecure or any of that. It's just that native code has many advantages. Look at Steve Gibson, the dude still programs in freaking assembly. Creates Windows apps that are single EXEs less than a megabyte that take almost no RAM at all. Removing all that fluff can have its advantages. Especially for little utility apps with simple purposes.

Desktop apps have their place, this is silly.
A native desktop app can better utilize hardware, take advantage of native OS abilities that chromeless frameworks can't.

Native apps can be built in lower-level languages and be built to be much more solid, speedy, use fewer resources, take less RAM without all the middlemen fluff.

I'm all for web apps, they are cool and all, but they depend on a browser and a tab being open. They have limited abilities, they can't even put an icon in the system tray, or startup with Windows. They are not as easy to control via OS security policies.

Maybe I just have bad luck, but I ALWAYS try to find services that give native desktop apps. If not native, then at least full featured frameworks that can use native OS features.
I rarely touch Office online because it's just slow, herky jerky, buggy, crashy. I absolutely hate interfaces that aren't very responsive.

I agree with Scott that IF the app can be a web app, go for it. But there are also times when you might want native OS features, lower level language that compiles with fewer dependencies, smaller size, greater efficiency, and so forth.

Apps can be built to self-update, most desktop apps do. I've never had to do anything fancy to get Slack to update, it just updates itself. Slack isn't native, it's a framework, just using it as an example.

I think when the OP talked about Windows apps being "buttons and boxes" or whatever, he probably just means that there is a drag-n-drop interface for common .NET form controls. You just place all the controls where you want and program from there. Things like minimize/max/close, resize-able borders and control menus are all sort of automatic.
But with web apps, form libraries are not as popular, and there aren't any really good drag-n-drop designers for creating UI FROM such things anyway.
Much time has to be spent designing the UI, even if you do use a library (you have to learn the library!), or even a CSS framework like Bootstrap or Foundation, you still have to code and try to keep straight the rows and columns and how you want things to respond and slide around responsively.

In any case. Desktop apps definitely have their place. I use desktop email, desktop photo editing, desktop file and information management tools, chat, backup apps, file sync, document readers, DB management tools, remote control tools, FTP, text editors/IDEs, and 3 dozen others that are just way more better suited to native.
Native apps always have the option of avoiding updates. Or lets say an update ruins things, you can usually reinstall a previous good version. With web apps, if they screw up and something breaks, you have no options but complete down time waiting for fixes or trying to fix it yourself depending on where the problem lies.
And of course, browser tabs are, for the most part, sandboxed, so there are already limitations regarding file system. Try auto-connecting to files over the local network from a web app. Web apps don't have unlimited power, if they did, we would be right back to having huge malware issues. Malware has made web apps more limited and locked down. Native apps are still the way to go if you need power and greater control of OS abilities and features.

This web versus native argument can go forever, but just like most things in life, you pick the best tool for the job. If a web app will do it, always go web app. They are typically easy to set up and maintain. If you want native OS features or require to greatest efficiency, security, or OS-level features, then obviously native.
If you want to do both, as is popular these days, look into crossover frameworks like Meteor, Electron, or Cordova for mobile as well.

I believe cross-platform frameworks are going to be huge for some time to come, but there will always be a special place in my heart for a native app that can fully utilize system tray, startup, notifications, file system, and full system power.
Yes frameworks can do some of this, but they have to come with a lot of middlemen architecture, bloating the apps RAM use probably 3 to 5 times more than would be necessary with native programming.

Anyway, I've rambled on long enough.

I was just trying to get to the bottom of this friggin thread, 27,229!!!!

When I click the double-down arrow it looks like it's trying to zip down then just gives up about 20 pages later.

Finally after clicking the double-down arrow about 10 times in a row it finally figured out how to take me to the end.

But besides that, I came here to create a thread and whine about Microsoft for a while.

@scottalanmiller said in Why Does Everyone Still Focus on Relational Databases?:

I just built out a NoSQL ElasticSearch three node cluster in the lab. Whoo!

The perfect DB setup for storing a hit counter for the number of times I've watched Tombstone!

@scottalanmiller said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

@guyinpv said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

@scottalanmiller said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

@guyinpv said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

@scottalanmiller said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

@guyinpv said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

Do you consider OneNote a safe and secure option for storing credentials, passwords, server logins?

OneNote is fine. It's Sharepoint security that is of the concern here.

My O365 Business plan does not include Sharepoint I don't think. That is for Business Premium.
What does Sharepoint add as far as client notes that I can't do just with OneNote alone?

We use metadata to make Sharepoint even more useful. Want to see all documents by customer? One click and you are there.

Not sure I understand the connection. So you're in a Sharepoint wiki and you "click a user" and then see all their OneNote notes and OneDrive files? Or are you keeping all their info just in Sharepoint?

Not the Sharepoint wiki, we keep OneNotes in Sharepoint with metadata.

So more like a document store?

Speaking of security, if a note is just a file in OneDrive, can't it be shared out to a client that way?

@scottalanmiller said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

@guyinpv said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

@scottalanmiller said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

@guyinpv said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

Do you consider OneNote a safe and secure option for storing credentials, passwords, server logins?

OneNote is fine. It's Sharepoint security that is of the concern here.

My O365 Business plan does not include Sharepoint I don't think. That is for Business Premium.
What does Sharepoint add as far as client notes that I can't do just with OneNote alone?

We use metadata to make Sharepoint even more useful. Want to see all documents by customer? One click and you are there.

Not sure I understand the connection. So you're in a Sharepoint wiki and you "click a user" and then see all their OneNote notes and OneDrive files? Or are you keeping all their info just in Sharepoint?

@Minion-Queen
I see what happened. It seems that all my notebooks went in to my personal hotmail account instead of the 365 account.
MS is a little goofy when it comes to trying to mix-n-match what is my personal acct versus the 365 one.

@StrongBad said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

But the wiki is really useful. You can use the wiki instead of OneNote, too. They work quite differently. OneNote is good for rich content. Wiki is good for fast editing.

I don't really understand a OneNote note as a "file".
In my O365 account, I cannot even access OneNote from the web browser, it just has an error:

It does tell me to go look in OneDrive for the notes, but I don't see any notes in OneDrive, I don't get it. Are notes stored in files? It's just weird.

I can see how a wiki could be useful, but a wiki is meant to be unstructured, while a database of clients and projects and work mixed with files and invoices and other stuff, doesn't come off as something that lends itself to a wiki.

I thought for sure there would be some popular "freelancer" or "self-employed" service/app that does all this stuff, rolled in to one. Maybe there is, haven't looked hard enough.

@scottalanmiller said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

@guyinpv said in What do you use to track client data and logs and more?:

Do you consider OneNote a safe and secure option for storing credentials, passwords, server logins?

OneNote is fine. It's Sharepoint security that is of the concern here.

My O365 Business plan does not include Sharepoint I don't think. That is for Business Premium.
What does Sharepoint add as far as client notes that I can't do just with OneNote alone?