Paying the damage

[billybiro]

nice....


very true, but also laughable.
Any client, with a view to security, will not allow you to do this, unless you have one of their builds installed (and that's rare anyway).
If you're a consultant, without access to company data then your own equipment is fine. If you're a developer, working ion client's internal business systems, then it's almost certain that you'll have to use their equipment, for more than just security reasons.

well that's just horsesh1t

Just because your own frame of reference is clients who seemingly still live in decades past, doesn't mean this is complete nonsense.

There are people in this very thread telling you how thier experience, with clients of all shapes and sizes, is one of being allowed to use their own equipment all the time.

Maybe try taking the blinkers off sometime?

[Lance]

Just because your own frame of reference is clients who seemingly still live in decades past, doesn't mean this is complete nonsense.

Not true, and not what I said.

There are people in this very thread telling you how thier experience, with clients of all shapes and sizes, is one of being allowed to use their own equipment all the time.

I don't deny that. I pointed out a scenario where is common.

Maybe try taking the blinkers off sometime?

I think the blinkers are closer to home. You are suggesting that client's are paranoid because they may not allow contractors to use their own equipment.
There are many reasons why they may not allow it. Security is one of them. Intellectual Property control is another. Consistency of build if in a developer role is another.

Paranoia is not one that I believe is common. It is a 'blinkered' view to suggest otherwise.

[Old Greg]

Not true, and not what I said.


I don't deny that. I pointed out a scenario where is common.


I think the blinkers are closer to home. You are suggesting that client's are paranoid because they may not allow contractors to use their own equipment.
There are many reasons why they may not allow it. Security is one of them. Intellectual Property control is another. Consistency of build if in a developer role is another.

Paranoia is not one that I believe is common. It is a 'blinkered' view to suggest otherwise.

Billy has never actually had a contract before.

[Lance]

Billy has never actually had a contract before.

and if he did he'd walk out before the end of teh contract, as that's what we're supposed to do.

[Old Greg]

and if he did he'd walk out before the end of teh contract, as that's what we're supposed to do.

In theory he knows exactly what to do. He's a contracting incel.

[vwdan]

While this is clearly true, I wonder how many places would let u BYOD (and connect to their network)

Nowhere I've worked thats for sure.

I have to say, loads allow me to be honest. (He says, typing this on a ClientCo laptop!)

[ladymuck]

Current client is fine about BYOD, they have a separate WiFi network for such things. However, you can access more if you use client kit on the 'proper' network. Staff are complaining about that as it also restricts WFH if your home IP isn't whitelisted. I can see that changing seeing as facilities are encouraging WFH because the car park gets too full. Never mind that the building is never full, mind you...

[Lance]

Current client is fine about BYOD, they have a separate WiFi network for such things. However, you can access more if you use client kit on the 'proper' network. Staff are complaining about that as it also restricts WFH if your home IP isn't whitelisted. I can see that changing seeing as facilities are encouraging WFH because the car park gets too full. Never mind that the building is never full, mind you...

Vodafone in Reading by any chance?
I hear the parking's a nightmare.

[billybiro]

Not true, and not what I said.


I don't deny that. I pointed out a scenario where is common.


I think the blinkers are closer to home. You are suggesting that client's are paranoid because they may not allow contractors to use their own equipment.
There are many reasons why they may not allow it. Security is one of them. Intellectual Property control is another. Consistency of build if in a developer role is another.

Paranoia is not one that I believe is common. It is a 'blinkered' view to suggest otherwise.

This is exactly what you said:

Any client, with a view to security, will not allow you to do this, unless you have one of their builds installed (and that's rare anyway).

and I, along with others in this very thread, have told you that we've had entire career's worth of contracts for security conscious companies that have allowed us to use our own equipment without any special software.

Your repeated assertion that "no company would allow that" makes me feel like I'm a pilot being lectured by a flat-earther, and makes you look like a fool.

[MrButton]

I, along with others in this very thread, have told you that we've had entire career's worth of contracts for security conscious companies that have allowed us to use our own equipment without any special software.

Must have not been working on anything important.