erush

My feedback

  1. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SDA (K2000) » New Features  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush shared this idea  · 
  2. 24 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  4 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Scripting  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 
  3. 7 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SDA (K2000)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush commented  · 

    Agreed. Need an option to be able to automate the updating of the Driver Feed. I understand the need for manual control as drivers have the potential to be problematic. But I'd rather have current drivers for security and not have to micromanage Driver Feed updates, when it could be automated.

    Is there even a way to revert to a different pack version if you update one and it has problems? (should make an installed version choose-able override option for revert or remain-on purposes)

    For autoupdate:

    Should make it so we are able to set a schedule for download, can even be separate from the nightly check for updates. Maybe something configurably similar to the SMA Patching/Driver download schedule.

    Maybe add an SMA patch subscription label way to handle what models should be included/excluded in the auto update.

    This feature should send an email notification similar to SMA patching when a driver pack is replaced by autoupdate.

    erush supported this idea  · 
  4. 4 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Service Desk  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush shared this idea  · 
  5. 5 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 
  6. 26 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » General Feedback  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush commented  · 
  7. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SMA (K1000) » Service Desk  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush commented  · 
  8. 57 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    We are investigating some changes to the UI that will ensure a more consistent experience across the K1 for each of these areas.

    Considering there are three different areas listed in this idea, we may look to implement these separately to focus on the most urgent needs. Based on the comments, the biggest issue here appears to be related to the OS selection for software inventory not allowing the ability to select all OS versions for Mac or Windows.

    These are all valid ideas that would improve consistency so these have all been added to the backlog but they are not currently planned for our next release. Please continue to vote if you’d like to see this prioritized for a future release.

    erush supported this idea  · 
  9. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush commented  · 

    Seems they removed the KB article and fixed this issue in 6.4 SP2 (6.4.120756).
    Listed as Resolved Issued ID K1-18404 in release notes.

    and a new KB article:
    https://support.software.dell.com/kb/184090

    erush shared this idea  · 
  10. 32 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush commented  · 

    Agreed. At the very least need to be able to rename Custom 1-4. Even better would be having the option to hide unused fields and rename all fields.

  11. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Patch Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush shared this idea  · 
  12. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SMA (K1000) » Appliance  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush commented  · 

    I'd like the same for Symantec Whole Disk Encryption (aka PGP) too.

  13. 89 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 
    erush commented  · 

    I fell in this boat. I thought that was what Authentication Settings section had a sort order for, but it's not actually checking access role on authentication at all. It's only setting access on account creation (first login or an import). After that it is up to you to manually change in a user account.

    This seems like a bug to me.

    This is sorely needed as most customers will manage admins using LDAP groups, as that is how it's done with most other products.

    Kind of sad that this request has been around since 2011, as Daniel said feature seems taken for granted. There should at least be a Note made in the documentation stating that roles are only set at time of account creation in the system. That in order to change it must be done manually.

  14. 79 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    11 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Service Desk  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    This is under consideration but not planned for the next release. Please continue voting if you’d like to see this feature prioritized for a future release

    erush commented  · 

    Yes proxyAddresses needs to be evaluated as it would be for the same user but come from different addresses.

    If this can be done with a ticket rule as billy said, I'd like to know how.

  15. 0 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush commented  · 

    Rendering slowness was resolved with Hotfix 6.3.113398 by changing to an icon button rather than a drop down, so that is good.

    But I kind of still would like the separation for the option to not clutter the list with more icons.

    erush shared this idea  · 
  16. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush shared this idea  · 
  17. 39 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Asset Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 
    erush commented  · 

    Yes please, "Application Control" needs this badly.

    I wanted to add this request myself, just haven't gotten around to it.

    "Disallowed programs script", has been depreciated. But you could set a label to do this against. Need same functionality in application control.

  18. 7 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush shared this idea  · 
  19. 50 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  6 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush commented  · 

    Yes this is needed in both places. Machine list as either a similar Machine Action drop down or from the Choose Action drop down. And definitely in the Machine details page as well. As Force Inventory for example is handy in both places.

    Please however, make it optional what scripts are in the action menu. Like a checkbox in the script to enable it for this purpose. So that there isn't a huge list of stuff that would never need to be run this way.

  20. 131 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    20 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Reporting  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base