|
I have seen it in so many places. Another one is "oh hey let's give every VM the max number of vCPUs because more CPU is more better than."
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:But the Startup folder in the users app data/roaming/blahblah is missing. If I add a task to create it will windows just pick it up automatically? C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup might exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup might exist. I completely forgot to update this. Turns out if you create the folder windows picks it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
I'm looking for some cheap managed switches that have a decent web interface as I won't be the only one touching them. I'm considering the Cisco SG350 series but now Ubiquiti has peaked my interest. Anyone familiar with Ubiquiti switches? Also, I know they get setup via the controller software, but do they need a constant connection to the controller? Our locations are very rural with spotty internet connections and I don't want to have to put a controller at each location. Would Ubiquiti be a bad choice in this scenario?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
kiwid posted:I'm looking for some cheap managed switches that have a decent web interface as I won't be the only one touching them. You can host the controller in The Cloud or in an externally accessible DMZ. A 5$/Mo digital ocean droplet can do it or a t3.small instance on AWS. But no they don't need a constant connection to the controller. Just for the initial setup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 02:38
|
|
|
Cisco SG350 are being replaced with the Cisco CBS350. They can be cloud managed through the Cisco Business Dashboard which you need to deploy on a VM yourself, or managed via CLI or local web UI. They seem to be a rehash of the Catalyst 2960L series switches, though they don't run IOS. They look really good for the money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 09:45
|
|
|
I'm gonna ask a ridiculously stupid question that came up at work the other day: Is there really no legal/licensed/approved way to install Windows 10 Enterprise on a PC that was built or delivered without a Windows license? The whole discussion started when someone was asking about what to do with a NUC that was bought without Windows on it, and I told them to just PXE boot it and install the Enterprise image we use on our 1500+ PCs that were purchased with Windows 10 Professional on it, but apparently that wasn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 07:19
|
|
|
evobatman posted:I'm gonna ask a ridiculously stupid question that came up at work the other day: Is there really no legal/licensed/approved way to install Windows 10 Enterprise on a PC that was built or delivered without a Windows license? Do you not have a license for your Enterprise install or how does this even begin to be a problem?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 07:41
|
|
|
Volume licensed Windows are only upgrade licenses, for a company to deploy Enterprise the device has to have an OEM Pro license already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 10:16
|
|
|
What SEKCobra said is what I too thought, what Thanks Ants said is what I was told.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/licensing/product-licensing/windows10?activetab=windows10-pivot:primaryr5quote:The following conditions must be met for a licensed PC to be eligible for a Volume Licensing upgrade license: http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/d/1/2d14fe17-66c2-4d4c-af73-e122930b60f6/Windows10-QOS.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 14:16
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/licensing/product-licensing/windows10?activetab=windows10-pivot:primaryr5 Yeah that is an upgrade license, but unless it has recently changed, you can just use a full enterprise license.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
Huh, I'll be damned."Windows 10 Volume Licensing Guide posted:Qualifying Operating Systems Edit: interestingly, macOS is a qualifying operating system, so it's kosher to install Enterprise on a Mac without buying it a Pro license first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
kiwid posted:I'm looking for some cheap managed switches that have a decent web interface as I won't be the only one touching them. One thing I've seen online is that ubiquiti switches have QC problems, especially with POE, the issue manifests such that they kill your POE powered devices. Not every device but enough that I'm going to roll ubiquiti at home for everything except a POE switch which I'm going to get an SG200 or 300 instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
SEKCobra posted:Yeah that is an upgrade license, but unless it has recently changed, you can just use a full enterprise license. I'm not aware that there is such a thing as a volume license that isn't an upgrade, was my point
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
MF_James posted:One thing I've seen online is that ubiquiti switches have QC problems, especially with POE, the issue manifests such that they kill your POE powered devices. AFAIK their PoE issues were only affecting devices using their wonky passive PoE mode, 802.3af/at was fine (to the point that they were even encouraging people using passive mode to buy their 802.3af adapters as preemptive avoidance).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:Edit: interestingly, macOS is a qualifying operating system, so it's kosher to install Enterprise on a Mac without buying it a Pro license first. But there's also some licensing issues on the Mac side, IIRC, if you put a different OS on the machine. I think, I might have this backwards somehow, and we were being charged for an Enterprise license for each Mac in the fleet because it had the "potential" to Boot Camp, even if we didn't? I dunno, it's been a poo poo week and my brain is mush.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
All you guys made me realize is that I am glad that I refused to go to a MS licensing event for my company. It's someone else's problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 08:47
|
|
|
wolrah posted:AFAIK their PoE issues were only affecting devices using their wonky passive PoE mode, 802.3af/at was fine (to the point that they were even encouraging people using passive mode to buy their 802.3af adapters as preemptive avoidance). That's good to hear since these switches I bought are going to be powering a bunch of 802.3at cameras and APs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
Here's a bit of a weird one: There's a distribution group in Exchange called 'Department Heads'. Everyone who's in charge of a department, makes it on this list. Important email go to them, blah blah. Now, there was a request to make a new file share called, "Department Heads". The same group of people are to have access to this share. I tried to change the group from a distribution group to a security group, which worked, and then give permission for that group to have access to the file share. That part didn't work. Is there something I'm missing? I didn't expect this to work anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it is possible, and what you want is a security-enabled distribution group. Those may need to be universal groups, not just domain-local or global.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
I definitely have a handful of distribution enabled security groups that work as advertised. They were created new though, no conversion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Imo it's a bad idea to use mail-enabled security groups because even though the list of names for the distribution list and file share overlap perfectly now, they may not later. Part of my AD cleanup before everything blew up required decoupling some of those into two separate groups because needs change over time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
The Fool posted:I definitely have a handful of distribution enabled security groups that work as advertised. They were created in Exchange Admin Console, then just simply changed to Security Group with this radio button:  And it automatically changed to Universal group
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
klosterdev posted:Imo it's a bad idea to use mail-enabled security groups because even though the list of names for the distribution list and file share overlap perfectly now, they may not later. Part of my AD cleanup before everything blew up required decoupling some of those into two separate groups because needs change over time. I agree - management thinks that the administrative assistant who managed the mailing list could then manage permissions on the file share
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
klosterdev posted:Imo it's a bad idea to use mail-enabled security groups because even though the list of names for the distribution list and file share overlap perfectly now, they may not later. Part of my AD cleanup before everything blew up required decoupling some of those into two separate groups because needs change over time. I've always done mail-enabled security groups instead of distribution groups, because it is a nice logical differentiator. If there are instances where they don't line up to file permissions or some other permissions, I would create a more specific group in those instances. Just keeps user provisioning simpler, in my experience. Bob Morales posted:They were created in Exchange Admin Console, then just simply changed to Security Group with this radio button: Change it to Global, unless you have a specific reason for having it Universal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Do vendors not realize its pretty fucken annoying to call someone everyday over a $3000 dollar quote? On top of that, go and call the director after I am ignoring your calls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 06:47
|
|
|
lol internet. posted:Do vendors not realize its pretty fucken annoying to call someone everyday over a $3000 dollar quote? On top of that, go and call the director after I am ignoring your calls. Yes, and I have seen a multi-million dollar deal blow up over that last part. Not the ignoring calls bit, but a sales guy went above the head of the guy managing the purchase and the poor sales guy got eviscerated. I cannot imagine how much money he lost on that deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
We are in the process of building a new location, so a poo poo ton of cold calls started and even some from established vendors soon as they got wind of it. I let them know I would not be gathering ANY quotes until mid-October. Many have ignored this and have instead been calling every week or so since August. If I recognize the caller ID as a repeat offender, I have just been transferring them to Rick without even picking it up. (we have an IVR extension that does nothing but play everyone's favorite Rick Astley song on a loop). Need to look at the stats and see how long they wait before giving up....
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
On topic: https://github.com/pjf/rickastley
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
I know what number I'm forwarding unsolicited vendors to from hereon out
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
Anyone doing mail exclusively in O365? Right now we're doing barracuda before it hits O365. An advantage i see with the appliance is it holds mail if there is any sort of issue and delivers afterwards. With O365 there shouldn't be an issue in o365 and you can also open up actual emails to look at. On the O365 mail flow message trace you need to select a specific recipient, i can't just say show me all accepted email to my domain and then filter it that way. Also can't open up emails to look at header and content potentially. Unless I'm not looking in the correct spot. Also anyone do a hybrid upgrade from 2010 to 2016? Any recommended reads or documentation outside what's on the msft site?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
Don't you have a higher probability of problems receiving email if you have something with less than 100% uptime sat in front of Office 365? Since they both now need to be up for email to work? There are probably reasons I'd use services like Mimecast, but improving uptime wouldn't be a feature I'd go looking for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
You can still have a mail hygiene appliance between O365 and the outside world without having to have the device on-prem, you just need to move to a virtualized cloud appliance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
We have on prem Cisco ESA for spam and we're moving to Cisco CES which is cloud only. So far it's pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
klosterdev posted:I know what number I'm forwarding unsolicited vendors to from hereon out It really makes my day when scum of the earth credit card processors call. I gladly let them know that "Rick handles that, let me transfer you". Occasionally they even ask for his last name, which I happily give. And then off to extension 7002 they go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
The whole thing is really unfortunate because the thing-in-itself is truly a gem of mid-80s pop music, IMO? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
I guess in the 80s there was a lot of other music around that hasn't sort of survived in the popular consciousness, but every single Stock Aitken Waterman song that is still around today sounds the same as the next one. There was a great documentary that Jeremy Deller put together with archive footage and you can see the moment in at the turn of the decade when it hits Pete Waterman that the world has shifted around him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
I'm not saying it's necessarily good but it's p.def one of the purest in terms of obeying the forms of E: Although, "cards on the table" (as the kids say these days), I'm never gonna give it up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Not sure if this should go here or another thread but hopefully someone can point me at a solution. I need to enable HSTS on an IIS8 box. I've got the header put in, but it's not responding with the header on a 404. Is there any way to force IIS8 to return custom response headers on errors?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 18:56
|
|
