OSUJAG

My feedback

  1. 66 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SMA (K1000) » Scripting  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    OSUJAG supported this idea  · 
  2. 7 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SMA (K1000) » Asset Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    OSUJAG supported this idea  · 
    OSUJAG commented  · 

    This is a good idea. However, I don't believe the Name field is a unique field. Whereas, a serial number is unique, and the possibility of entering an identical name would be very low, it is still possible to have 2 identical serial numbers entered. Duplicate Assets. I know this is slightly different than what you are requesting, in allowing the field name to be editable. I wanted to point out that no Asset fields can be set to "Unique". This is a gripe I've had with Kace, since they took away the ability to have unique fields.

    My gripe in a post:
    https://kace.uservoice.com/users/39760797-osujag/filters/my_feedback

    A post similar to your post:
    https://kace.uservoice.com/forums/82699-k1000/suggestions/2876642-ability-to-rename-name-field-for-assets

  3. 67 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    9 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    OSUJAG commented  · 

    Agreed. Having the name of the field being "Name", would be OK, if everyone knew what is used for the name of every asset. However, that doesn't work well in an Asset Management role. Especially when that field is a required field for that Asset.. My work-around is to create another field with the name of the field set to what I want it to be. That gives me 2 fields, named differently, with the same data. Redundant, wasteful and ugly.

    Here's one of my replies from a similar Asset Control post, which describes the need for uniqueness and customization.

    https://kace.uservoice.com/users/39760797-osujag/filters/my_feedback

    This is one of the worst "resolutions" come up with so far. Jeff Lewis' suggestion, of providing a choice of allowing duplicates or not, was the perfect solution. Instead, the decision was made to just allow duplicates. Not only for the Name field, but for ALL fields, custom fields included.

    I was told when this "fix" was applied, that there were more Kace Admins requesting that duplicates be allowed. So, that is why the feature was removed. (Or added, depending on how you want to look at it.) Basically, a reason was that I am out numbered in my needs. I'm sure that the many Admins wanted duplicates to be a choice, not the only choice.

    My example also refers to Monitors. Whereas Jeff provides a simple descriptive name for his monitors as the Name, we have Non-Capital Asset labels we affix to every monitor. Those labels have a unique Barcode/Number, that we use as the Asset Name. We have students who create the assets and enter the asset information into Kace. Unfortunately, there are times when students create assets that have already been created. And, without the option of having a custom field that can be set to "Do Not Allow Duplicates", allows for duplicates. So now, I may have systems in Kace showing that there are 4 monitors or 8 monitors assigned to it, when there are actually 2. I definitely have systems with 4 monitors related. Yes, I know I can add the steps to procedures, to have the student first look to see if there's an asset already created. However, that adds extra training to our high-turnover student positions. And will require me team to audit what is in Kace, just to make sure there are no duplicates. Then, clean it up when those procedures are occasionally missed. This is unacceptable.

    So, I reiterate; Jeff Lewis' suggestion, of "providing a choice" of allowing duplicates or not, was the perfect solution. With that not being an option, not even for at least one custom field, the Asset tracking is near useless as an Inventory Control Tool.

    I've been Kace 1000 and 2000 customer since Kace was an independent product. Nearly 6 years. It's the little details that Kace provided that initially won my business. It'll be the little things that will lose it.

    Please keep the options available. That is what made Kace the best.

    OSUJAG supported this idea  · 
  4. 660 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    19 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Patch Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    OSUJAG commented  · 

    Reposting my post from nearly 2 years ago.

    Since this post isn't marked as completed, and still "Planned":

    I love Kace. However, even I am starting to get frustrated with the number of reboots required before queued patches can continue installing. I'd like to see all available patches install, then a single reboot to finish up. As would my 300+ users. :-) (Now 500+, and including 50+ Macs)

    OSUJAG commented  · 

    Since this post isn't marked as completed, amd still "Planned":

    I love Kace. However, even I am starting to get frustrated with the number of reboots required before queued patches can continue installing. I'd like to see all available patches install, then a single reboot to finish up. As would my 300+ users. :-)

Feedback and Knowledge Base