@xavierdelaraunt said in User Profile handling anno 2022:
Great and stream-lined!
I have quite a lot of settings I cannot get into the default settings in any way like that.
Because I don't know - what settings can you not apply to machines via intune? I assume you've tried and it simply won't work?
@Pete-S huh - I'm sure prices are some higher now.. but $200 for a 24 port switch seems high, not low - but JB will just tell me to shutup and go away now...
Sure they have - but the haven't been available for the everyperson until about 10 years ago.... even though not really mainstream until about 5-7 years ago.
That said - because smart phones have been out since the early 2000's there is no reason someone should really consider it amazing today.....
@Pete-S said in Weird DNS resolution issue:
@Dashrender said in Weird DNS resolution issue:
I ran into this yesterday.
Client has cable modem to TP Link router, TP Link is DHCP for network.
DHCP provides DNS addresses pointing to Comodo Secure DNS (8.26.56.26 and 8/20.247.20)Some computers are able to get DNS resolution - others cannot.
All computers can ping 8.8.8.8 - so internet works.
All computers can ping the Comodo DNS servers.Yet some computers just won't get DNS resolution.
I fixed the issue by changing the DHCP to hand out 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4, rebooted the clients - problem gone.
Anyone heard of an issue like this? where a DNS provider seemingly blocks some requests from a given IP, but not others?
Was there something else I should have tried?Sounds like it might have been the reboot that actually solved the problem.
All requests from the LAN will originate from the routers WAN IP address so it will be the same IP from the DNS servers point of view. In other words, it's unlikely it's some problem on the DNS servers.
nah - I rebooted the computers myself - still no go.
I didn't personally reboot the router, but they replaced the cable modem and the router - and things still didn't work - so they put the old router back - all before I arrived.
@Pete-S said in Weird DNS resolution issue:
All requests from the LAN will originate from the routers WAN IP address so it will be the same IP from the DNS servers point of view. In other words, it's unlikely it's some problem on the DNS servers.
Right - which is why it was so weird why some machines got DNS responses and some did not.
@Pete-S said in Weird DNS resolution issue:
@Dashrender said in Weird DNS resolution issue:
Was there something else I should have tried?
When troubleshooting you can make DNS queries to specific DNS servers that doesn't use the clients DHCP originated default DNS servers.
For example:
nslookup mangolassi.it 8.8.8.8or
nslookup mangolassi.it 8.8.4.4It would be better than just pinging.
Nice - thanks didn't know that.
I did all the ipconfig stuff - no change... at least not until I change the DNS in the DHCP server.
what's the latency to that far off connection?
@pmoncho said in Email auto CC:
@scottalanmiller said in Email auto CC:
@WrCombs said in Email auto CC:
@Pete-S said in Email auto CC:
@WrCombs said in Email auto CC:
Can someone help me understand GSuite email admin stuff??
Customer opened ticket to add her as a CC on another employees emails - we set up the rule yesterday and tested - worked fine from my understanding but ticket was reopened with the notes that when the employee who is copied emails send an email to the other employee from the email that is supposed to be cc'd on all incoming emails - there is no response /cc notification - My thought is because its coming from email that is supposed to be CC'd it's not sending the CC to prevent loop back emails - but I dont know much about it.anyone have any insight?
Contact google support instead. They are there to help you and they should know how it is suppose to work and what settings to check if it doesn't. And they can probably see things in your account that you can't.
Gotcha. My manager and I were bouncing ideas off of each other on this one and we came to the conclusion that google is being to smart for it's own good - Like it's not copying her on emails being sent to that other employees email from the CC'd email to prevent loop back emails - we explained this to the customer -
Maybe a good chance to step back and figure out the end goal. Why would she want to be CC'd on her own email?
A few users do that here. I asked why and the individuals stated that it was reassurance that the email went out if they see one come into their own mailbox.
I decided to win a different battle.
yeah - i was thinking the person making this request likely wanted to test if it was actually working - so they tested it from their own account and well - it failed - lol
@scottalanmiller said in POTS line replacement:
@Dashrender said in POTS line replacement:
Of course that doesn't solve the sending issue. People just don't want to deal with scanning a document, then uploading to a service, then sending from that service, etc...
They want to walk to the machine choose from the address book and hit send.
Which only happens if you have paper already, start by solving that and that paper based machine gets super complicated.
I can't demand other parties not use the forms they force on us. And I'm in no position to force the company to use another vendor who has better processes (and clearly most management won't either).
@pmoncho said in POTS line replacement:
@Dashrender said in POTS line replacement:
Of course that doesn't solve the sending issue. People just don't want to deal with scanning a document, then uploading to a service, then sending from that service, etc...
They want to walk to the machine choose from the address book and hit send.
Offices with an EMR are easier to transition as they can just print to PDF, open website to reply with attachment and done. Some of these PDFs are 50-80 pages too, so they actually save time and money (long distance) if the fax bombs out half way through.
yeah, this is a constant issue for us.
We have some people who have fully embraced the PDF print/upload solution. Then we have those who just push back against pretty much any change.
Our EMR has two ways to get a piece of paper into it.
a)
b)
There is actually yet another process
c)
While the number of arguable steps is the same as the first option, it does have the added expense of the label.
If you need to make sure the document actually arrived - then you are absolutely spending more time on option C than option A.
@travisdh1 said in Decentralized Identity:
@Dashrender said in Decentralized Identity:
The first thing that comes to my mind is - why would anyone trust the ledger (as it's called in the OKTA video)? Not to mention there are 80+ ledgers today according to the OKTA video.
Since you make your own identity and publish it to the ledger - why should I believe that?
Public ledgers are the tech behind cryptocurrencies. As to how secure it is, it can be very secure if they're using standard public/private key authentication
I get all that - but you need a launching off point - Bitcoin didn't have 1000's of nodes on day one - so the system was pretty much untrustable until it reached a critical mass of nodes.
So what's going to drive a huge number of nodes into existence?
@dafyre said in Decentralized Identity:
I also think, though, that if you're providing an identity that comes from the ledger, you can trace it back to the origin and all of that. So even if there are two people claiming to be @travisdh1 ...
You create an account on say... Google, and the Impostor creates an account on Yahoo, the identities may contain similar information, but it would be possible (and should be easy!) to trace it back to the origin, and be able to eeasily tell the two identities apart.
Unless I don't understand - I think you're missing one of the key points of this "decentralized identity" - and that is that there is no track back.
There two situations to consider:
airport/flying - The state gov't issues you a state ID, which you store in your wallet. The state is completely unaware of your wallet ID.
you go to the airport, you submit your state ID AND your personal ID that you created to the airport. The airport confirms that the State ID is valid by cross checking it with the State ID webportal - but for you, all they can do is check your wallet ID against what YOU put into the ledger. But since there is no tie between what you put the ledger and anything else of validation - why would anyone trust this?
Really - what point/purpose does presenting your own personally created ID serve in this situation (which was presented by the OKTA video)?
Login to email provider(or any generic website) - You send your personally created ID to the website, which they then assign as your credentials. this works fine because it's essentially no different than username/passwords of today. The email provider/website doesn't really care who you really are - only that you are participating in their platform and hopefully spending money with them. In fact this solution is significantly more privacy based since the only thing the website HAS to know about you is your public key. If you can pay in a private way (say Bitcoin), then there now becomes a link between this bitcoin wallet and your public key, but that's all
I see this potentially working when actual proof of who you are isn't required - but when it is - like Driver's license/passports/medical/gov't - then this system breaks down quickly or really makes no difference, because you NEED a centralized (or at least GREATLY trusted source) providing backup to who you say you are.
@WrCombs said in Any outlook guru's here?:
@WrCombs said in Any outlook guru's here?:
@Dashrender said in Any outlook guru's here?:
@WrCombs said in Any outlook guru's here?:
@scottalanmiller said in Any outlook guru's here?:
@WrCombs said in Any outlook guru's here?:
google meets meeting , and they can't access it from outlook - my guess is that it's something similar to the above - told them to copy the url below the "link" and paste it in the web browser to see if it would go for the meeting-
This is the issue. They "can't access Google Meets" from the "email client." There seem to be one of two options to this.
They are SO dumb that they think that a web URL is going to use Outlook as the web browser instead of the actual web browser.
They have received the email instead of Outlook and when they click the link, it does not take them to the meeting.
To "access" something these are the only two logical conclusions from the statement. Either they are trying to access to or access from. Otherwise, how is Outlook even involved?
when he clicks on the meeting invite he gets an error that says "this operation failed" from outlook directly. as for which of the 2 it is, I can't be sure
I found this i was going to tryOK - now we're getting somewhere - do you have a copy of the link you can share that they are clicking on inside Outlook?
I do not, have not been given access to the customer device yet
waiting for him to accept the remote support session , they are in their lunch rush right nowStill have not gotten access so I wont know until maybe tomorrow
but from what I can understand is he just needs to switch to g-mail through google workplace (?) and that will solve 10/11 problems he's having
While that might solve 10/11 problems - the biggest issue you're going to have is getting them to give up Outlook.
I had a customer who had Outlook and On-Premise Exchange - they switched to a third party hosted email solution (not gsuite) through IMAP but refused to give up Outlook. As far as I could tell, there was nothing special about their use of Outlook, they weren't advanced users, used like 5% of the feature. The issue was - it was what they were used to and didn't want to change!
@travisdh1 said in Any outlook guru's here?:
My favorite thing to do in most of these situations is install the PWA version of Outlook, and uninstall the locally installed version.
This also points out another major shortcoming of Micorsoft's Outlook. Nobody knows which Outlook thing it is by just the name. The free email service? The locally installed software? The PWA? There are probably more that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.
iOS version
Android Version
Windows full client
Mac Full client
Outlook.com
Outlook Web Access (old Exchange)
Outlook on the Web (current Exchange and O365) (can be pinned as PWA)
Plus they are working on a unified version of Outlook
@stacksofplates said in Eero Inquiry:
@Dashrender said in Eero Inquiry:
@dbeato said in Eero Inquiry:
@WrCombs You cannot hide your SSIDs on Eero. You also have a limit of your Main SSID and Guest Network. It is geared for Home and really small environments.
https://support.eero.com/hc/en-us/articles/214588166-Why-can-t-I-hide-my-network-SSID-with-eero-
It's consumer shit - why would you ever want to hide your WIFI network - that's a business need.
it's not even a business need. It does nothing at all for anything since it's trivial to find hidden SSIDs.
True!
@garak0410 I will be arriving Wednesday around noon.
@scottalanmiller said in Unattended remote access utility/ computer:
@travisdh1 said in Unattended remote access utility/ computer:
@scottalanmiller said in Unattended remote access utility/ computer:
@travisdh1 said in Unattended remote access utility/ computer:
@AdamF said in Unattended remote access utility/ computer:
Great video. Thanks for that. Your assumption is correct. There are no PCs or servers on this network, just other networking equipment. I like the idea of the Pi and Mesh Central. I finally was able to find one and have it on order. Time to setup a mesh central vm.
I also found this as an option as well https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B082VVCFNG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1
Not too badly priced either. But I am going with the Pi.
I'm leery about anything running a Celeron J or N series CPU, a Pi is probably going to perform better.
Actually they are probably faster than the Pi. But I like the Pi more.
Not in my experience, but I've also never run Windows on a Pi.
If you run a lean Debian similar to what RP has that people typically run on an RP4 on the Celerons, it's .... similar.
Right - why would you run windows on this? just because it's Intel? Run some 'nix thing like you would on the RPi and it should be faster than the RPi.
@RojoLoco said in What hardware do you use for online meetings?:
Our new setup includes 2 different models of Dell's video conferencing monitors. Built in camera (pops up from the top edge), as well as a decent array of mics and speakers below the display. I think management didn't really think it through, as our office is mostly cubicles. 2 or more people on a call turns into a weird, multi-node speakerphone, complete with odd echoes that come from both latency and physical distance. They probably would be great if everyone had them at home, but it's not really a practical solution if you have a budget.
Or practical in cubes....
@scottalanmiller said in Another new server question:
@Pete-S said in Another new server question:
@siringo said in Another new server question:
Thanks everyone for the thoughts and advice.
This server is going into an environment where what is chosen will, eventually, attract criticism, not formerly, but by way of passing comments.
I would be better to suggest a server with bells and whistles rather than one that did the job and cost less. But with that said, putting in place an overspec'd server would also be criticised.
If I were to select Dell as the vendor, that would be acceptable, Lenovo possibly less so.
I'll use the info from this post and go and take another look at what I can get my hands on.
I think I'll look for something with all SSDs that gives me 4TB of useable space, that's all I need, with some type of disk redundancy.
64GB RAM and a single CPU.
It will run Server 2022 with the Hyper-V role and house around 6 VMs.
I'm open to suggestions.
Thanks again.
CPU
Only needing 64GB of RAM suggest getting an E-2200/2300 series Intel CPU.
That's what used to be the called the E3-1200 series. Entry-level servers with Xeon CPUs that are similar to their desktop i7 equivalent. Up to 8 cores, max 128GB RAM (E-2300).
You pay for 16 cores with Windows so get what you feel is appropriate for the VMs running. But 6 cores is probably good enough.
RAM
- 4 x 16GB is probably your best bet
- 2 x 32GB will also work fine with 100% performance but might be more expensive
SSD
4TB options:
- 2 x 4TB RAID 1 (lower failure rate with only two drives)
- 3 x 2TB RAID 5
If you can get a good deal go for that - whatever combination.
Dell adds 200-300% on their SSD prices though. IMHO only enterprise customers get a fair price from Dell.
SSD price 3.84TB SATA enterprise drive
- Manufacturer $600-$700 (Samsung PM893)
- Lenovo $1,180 (maybe it's a special offer - I don't know)
- Dell $2,172
Server
Dell
- R250 is their entry level range (R240 old model)
- R350 has the same CPU range (R340 old model)
- R6515 (AMD Epyc) if you need more CPU or fast NVMe SSDs
Be aware of backplane configurations. Hotswap ability and backplanes is standard on high-end servers but not on entry level servers.
Lenovo SR250 seems to be their entry-level but it has more advanced option compared to Dell's R250.
I looked quickly but this all seems solid. I'd concur.
The number of RAM modules will depend more on the channels used by the CPUs - assuming you don't want to gimp yourself.
While we all agree the original release of Windows 11 and the 8th Gen Intel CPU requirement was garbage, it's now believed to be understood why this was put out by MS.
MS is including VBS (Virtual based Security) in Windows 11 22H2, which requires an 8th Gen Intel CPU.
Presuming this was MS's intention to include this on day one, but it wasn't ready for mainstream use - makes sense why the requirements where what they were.