|
ChickenOfTomorrow fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jan 21, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
unclenutzzy posted:Speaking of restarting, look at these words I received in response after asking someone to reboot earlier today. Aww yes, the "I don't want to reboot, here is why" person. Always one of the most popular people to hang out with at parties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow posted:It should be logging to the event log (or wherever), not just sending emails. What about the day when SMTP fails to send out a message so when y'all are looking for info you have no idea what went wrong with the app? What about when you want to incorporate logs into Splunk or ArcSight or logstash or whatever centralized logging solution you're using? Are you going to expect to scrape someone's e-mail box to recreate stuff that should be in an event log? All this is correct. Keep in mind we generally stay out of how this department builds their code and software. We've gone down the road of advisement before; all it does is shift responsibility of the service to us. The app should absolutely be logging to an actual log file, or to a database, or to the EL, or any combination of those alongside more primitive alerting like emails. But it isn't our show. And the senior dev can't write to the event log because he doesn't know how.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
gently caress I'm not even a developer and I figured out how to write event logs in Windows. poo poo isn't hard. Bonus points to the devs that write to a custom event log, send an email, and write an event regarding sending the email so when it doesn't show up you have debugging capabilities on where it came from, which server it went to, and the address it was supposed to end up at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
WRITING TO THE EVENT LOG IS A GOOD IDEA THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF YOU'D HAD IT TEN YEARS AGO
ChickenOfTomorrow fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
ChickenOfTomorrow fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jan 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
E: triple post
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Meanwhile, someone in my IT department was shocked that I used hibernate and didn't restart daily. I'm gonna be straight-up honest and say that my experience with the "hibernate" and "sleep" functions in Windows have been pretty universally terrible. I mean, it works fine 95% of the time... the problem is that when it's something you're doing all the goddamn time, a 5% failure rate is loving awful. It's possible it's gotten better in more recent versions of Windows (like, post-7). But I don't really blame the guy for this one. Then again, maybe it's me; maybe I'm the superstitious one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:It's possible it's gotten better in more recent versions of Windows (like, post-7). But I don't really blame the guy for this one. Then again, maybe it's me; maybe I'm the superstitious one. I feel like some junior guy will post here about me in twenty years as I scream "DON'T USE SLEEP MODE ON LAPTOPS WHEN MOVING THEM TO DIFFERENT NETWORKS" and he rolls his eyes, posting about how that poo poo's been fixed for over a decade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
At my first job the company was starting to learn the joys of importing "talent" from across the pond instead of getting people who actually live here. One developer they hired was like 2 positions above me in the company, and they put him in a cubicle right across from me. The first day he was there he somehow managed to completely gently caress up his computer and they had to reimage it. I still don't really know what he did, but it was obvious from the beginning that he had no real knowledge of how to do anything with computers beyond software development, and should have never touched a computer he had admin rights to. Luckily he didn't last long.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
I don't really see a reason for hibernate (for myself that is!) for the most part. My laptop(s) are docked while i'm at work, I lock the screen when I get up, I shutdown prior to leaving the office so that they stop producing heat and the drives stop spinning. I'm currently saddled with 2 laptops (one from my company and one from our largest client) until I can get a VM built on my company laptop that's joined to the client's domain. I could just carry around the client's laptop but that would require working on other clients on this client's equipment, which I could get away with, but isn't a good thing to do for many reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
I don't give a poo poo about what you use when you're done with the computer, but I also think you should be saving everything before you change the power state or are stepping away for more than 5-10 minutes. You want to use sleep or hibernate all the time? Go hog wild, just don't bitch at me if something fucks up and I have to reboot the thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
MF_James posted:I don't really see a reason for hibernate (for myself that is!) for the most part. My laptop(s) are docked while i'm at work, I lock the screen when I get up, I shutdown prior to leaving the office so that they stop producing heat and the drives stop spinning. I'm currently saddled with 2 laptops (one from my company and one from our largest client) until I can get a VM built on my company laptop that's joined to the client's domain. Hibernate/Sleep had more of a purpose when boot times were actually considerable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Wrath of the Bitch King posted:Hibernate/Sleep had more of a purpose when boot times were actually considerable. Yeah, I don't have SSDs in either laptop which is sad, but I'm not doing anything crazy other than rdping into stuff and typing up documentation and so fort all day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
nitrogen posted:Terminal Documentum But that's an actual thing   i'm sure
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
namlosh posted:Adding a host header entry for thing.org and https://www.thing.org on the correct website (I think they might be called mappings now actually) is how we used to host many sites on one ip and get them to show the correct website based on what the browser requested. SNI exists, solves this very problem, and is supported on the client side by everything that isn't Windows XP or android 2.3, why not just use that? I can't imagine a decent hosting provider wouldn't support it, since it's literally designed to solve the problem of "hosting many websites on a single public IP." You'll have a "default" SSL cert that gets shown to people who hit it via IP, and otherwise, the client negotiates what site's cert it's expecting via the https handshake. Modern Apache and nginx do it, does IIS not? (I've been building an nginx front end to an application server that works exactly as you described, only instead of 30 IPs, it's half a /24.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Storysmith posted:SNI exists, solves this very problem, and is supported on the client side by everything that isn't Windows XP or android 2.3, why not just use that? I can't imagine a decent hosting provider wouldn't support it, since it's literally designed to solve the problem of "hosting many websites on a single public IP." SNI is a thing, but my understanding is that the site name ends up being transmitted in plain text which isn't cool. You can also use a single cert with many Subject Alt Names or wildcards (or get real crazy and have SAN's with wildcards).
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
BaseballPCHiker posted:Stupid question but are you putting a https://www. in front of the domain name when trying to go to the website? I've seen this before and while the DNS alias fix is probably the way to go it could be just as simple as putting www in your browsers address bar. Please continue to ask stupid questions. I am very seriously not a web guy. namlosh posted:Adding a host header entry for thing.org and https://www.thing.org on the correct website (I think they might be called mappings now actually) is how we used to host many sites on one ip and get them to show the correct website based on what the browser requested. What I'm hearing for our options are either purchase a unique IP and change the host header, or change the domain name; is that correct, or am I missing something easier?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:I feel like some junior guy will post here about me in twenty years as I scream "DON'T USE SLEEP MODE ON LAPTOPS WHEN MOVING THEM TO DIFFERENT NETWORKS" and he rolls his eyes, posting about how that poo poo's been fixed for over a decade. I'll be swinging my walker at "kids these days trying to use unmatched RAM" well into my 80s, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
captkirk posted:SNI is a thing, but my understanding is that the site name ends up being transmitted in plain text which isn't cool. How is that any worse than requiring a dedicated IP? Anyone in a position to see the plaintext in the SNI scenario could see the IP/port being connected to and just connect to it themselves, getting the certificate and thus being able to see the names for which that certificate is valid. Obviously it could be valid for multiple names, but the number of scenarios for which you would care that someone knows the specific name being connected to but don't care about knowing it's one of a few possible names seem pretty small.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
nitrogen posted:Terminal Documentum The Tech Priests would like a word with you. "You may say, it is impossible for a man to become like the Machine. And I would reply, that only the smallest mind strives to comprehend its limits." - Fabricator General Kane
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
I work for the IT dept of an umbrella company for a bunch of smaller, separate companies. One of them received a new HR database that needs the ability to scan a bunch of paperwork and forms into each employee's file. They correctly contacted us and asked for information about which scanner to buy to be compatible with our virtual desktop infrastructure. My boss recommended a network scanner that we use here in our head office, but what she didn't know was that our techs here gave up on getting it on the network and resorted to setting it up as a local USB scanner. Our network admins (higher paid than me) struggle through several phone calls trying to get this scanner on to our network remotely. When they can't get it working they send me out because it's my problem now, and they tell me just to set it up locally. When I roll out to get it set up, the director of finance at our subcompany tells me that they will not accept having it set up as a local USB scanner because they specifically purchased it as a network scanner, recommended to them by my boss. They paid a significant premium because they were assured (by my boss) that it would work on the network. They even spent for additional drops to be run to their director of HR's office to accommodate the scanner. This is an expensive ~$1000 scanner from HP that according to HP's own support pages lacks the ability to communicate across subnets, which means it is not fit for purpose in our virtual environment. We get in a scuffle with our vendor about wanting to return it since it doesn't fit our purposes, the vendor knows they won't be able to sell it to anyone else as open box and push back. I drop it off at their shipping dept and take a photo as proof that I handed it over so that my boss and our sales rep can fight out who is going to pay for this mistake. Meanwhile, subcompany still doesn't have a scanner. Weeks pass and the vendor agrees to refund us for the "network" scanner. My boss tells me about some scheme she has where our company is going to purchase a hyper expensive scanner worth thousands and then rent it to our subcompanies to do their HR scanning. More weeks pass and the subcompany calls asking to have a scanner set up. I go out there and set up a little Xerox USB scanner they've purchased. The HR director has a laptop that has local software because it's mobile, so I set up the drivers and scanning software on his laptop. Subcompany is happy. At a general IT meeting a couple weeks ago my boss very vaguely told all of us that if she is handling a problem she expects us not to interfere and to hand off everything related to that problem to her. I knew exactly what she was talking about. The scanner showed up today. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
mewse posted:This is an expensive ~$1000 scanner from HP that according to HP's own support pages lacks the ability to communicate across subnets  does it talk entirely with broadcast traffic or something? How do you gently caress something up like that in TYOOL 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
mewse posted:The scanner showed up today. I can't read the model number so I can't look up why this is a punchline. Is it not a network scanner, or is Epson in no way shape or form a multi-thousand dollar printer? Also, if your boss doesn't want anybody else to get involved in her issues, she should have been the one on site configuring that sonofabitch printer. You're there on site and the subcompany is expecting competency and results, and the technology is limiting your ability to deliver. What the gently caress does she expect you to do, call her and walk away from it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
wolrah posted:How is that any worse than requiring a dedicated IP? Anyone in a position to see the plaintext in the SNI scenario could see the IP/port being connected to and just connect to it themselves, getting the certificate and thus being able to see the names for which that certificate is valid. Obviously it could be valid for multiple names, but the number of scenarios for which you would care that someone knows the specific name being connected to but don't care about knowing it's one of a few possible names seem pretty small. Content delivery networks, for example, could host a wide variety of sites. Also, plausible deniability and easy of detection. It's one thing to connect to https://www.horse.porn's IP address, it's another to send https://www.horse.porn over in plain text. That all said, it's really just the principal of not liking more plain text info than needed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:
Wouldn't be surprised, the network interfaces HP puts into those things were hilariously insecure well into the 2000's.. long after every admin on the planet started to wake up on the concept of network security. For a while you could make any config change you wanted by formatting a message with a couple hex codes and firing it at the printer's IP address. It blindly did whatever you told it. I used to put joke status messages on the LCD screen of every printer on our floor, see if I could get people talking about the weird poo poo the printer was saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:The https address doesn't resolve, unfortunately. Now that I know what to look for, is this a good fix? I'm not an expert but I would follow the instructions in (http://oddjobsintech.com/active-directory-tip-access-external-website-with-the-same-domain-name-as-your-internal-domain/) I dont think having a specific ip for your host is a major requirement although should be considered from a security POV. For example if your webhost shares many websites using the same IP address when you add the IP to the whitelist all domains hosted w/ that IP will also be white listed in your Env. Again - not an expert on this stuff but have done my fair share of breaking and fixing things very similar. Please reply back if you get a chance as I would like to know if I understood correctly. If I am flat-out wrong anyone with experience in the field input would be appreciated. DaRealAce fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:I can't read the model number so I can't look up why this is a punchline. It's a Workforce DS-70000. I still don't get the punchline either. (  Take the l off the end of the image filename)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:It's a Workforce DS-70000. I still don't get the punchline either. $4000 scanner, no networking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
had an epson ds-series similar to that at a clients office and really gently caress that stupid thing in its rear end. after 3 of them we just shitcanned and got them fujitsu's instead of that stupid piece of poo poo their vendor recommended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Alighieri posted:no networking. mmmmf yes that's the poo poo right there So now that she's declared nobody is to step in on her issues, who will she throw under the bus for this one?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:No, but you shouldn't have to do it daily. I restart when there's patches, but very rarely otherwise. Eh.. I think it depends on your system. My work laptop has 8 gigs ram but runs Win 7 32bit, (I know.. I really need to get helpdesk to reimage the machine with 64bit but they would want me to ship it to them and won't let me do it myself) and with all the stuff I have open during the day it eventually starts swapping to disk and getting slow and slower. If I don't shut down at the end of the night it takes forever to resume or just blue screens if it's been up for awhile. I really hate my laptop
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Alighieri posted:$4000 scanner, no networking. Isn't it an optional thing? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
under dns manager, website name, host file named www, someone had put the incorrect or what I assume was the old IP address. so I put in the one I knew resolved to dreamhost and it worked. just like that. why was it going to the domain earlier? why doesn't it still go to the domain controller even tho I walked back the redirects and other host file shenanigans I attempted? I do not know. but it's done. Thanks y'all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:I can't read the model number so I can't look up why this is a punchline. Is it not a network scanner, or is Epson in no way shape or form a multi-thousand dollar printer? There isn't really a punchline. A giant $4000 scanner showed up and is now sitting in the middle of our work area for a problem I fixed months ago. And yes she is saying she wants me to say "SORRY, CAN'T HELP YOU SET UP A SCANNER" because of politics between her and the subcompany. Judge Schnoopy posted:So now that she's declared nobody is to step in on her issues, who will she throw under the bus for this one? Haha... ha..
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
mewse posted:There isn't really a punchline. A giant $4000 scanner showed up and is now sitting in the middle of our work area for a problem I fixed months ago. Wait, maybe I read it wrong or something but you didn't really fix the problem, you just refunded the scanner that didn't work. I realize the rest of it isn't really under your control. A modern HP scanner that does not communicate across subnets though, what model is that? sounds fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Why would the scanner even care about subnets? Why would the scanner even know about subnets?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Yeah it seems to me you would have to try very hard to limit them like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:Yeah it seems to me you would have to try very hard to limit them like that. Hosts don't communicate across subnets in any case, that's on the router, isn't it? Does HP set the TTL on all of their scanners to 1?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:Hosts don't communicate across subnets in any case, that's on the router, isn't it? Almost sounds like it could purposely crippled component to force people to a higher end model. "Oh, you want a CROSS-network scanner, well that is a step up, but you'll find being able to ..." Thanatosian posted:It's possible it's gotten better in more recent versions of Windows (like, post-7). But I don't really blame the guy for this one. Then again, maybe it's me; maybe I'm the superstitious one. If I undock my laptop and set it to sleep and then attempt to redock it, it will never turn back on. I have to undock it, power it back on, shutdown the laptop, wait a bit, redock it and maybe the dock power switch will work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2016 06:07
|
|
