mb2k01

For me personally, job titles are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you are being respected and rewarded. If by asking the question you are feeling one of both are less than you deserve, then it's time to make a change! To answer your question though, I was an assistant technician for approx 6 months and a senior technician for about 1 year. I hold a very different position now though.

The wiki above is a decent summary. This PDF from Microsoft also helps if you have the time to read it all! http://redirectingat.com/?id=951X490024&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.microsoft.com%2Fdownload%2F6%2F8%2F7%2F687484ed-8174-496d-8db9-f02b40c12982%2FOverview%2520of%2520Windows%2520XP%2520Service%2520Pack%25203.pdf

It's been a while since I've had an RM Network of my own, but I remember the days of getting something to work which "wasn't officially supported"! All very strange and adding to the reasons to change column! I've said it a few times on threads, I like a good ol' debate, but aren't too interested in doing hate-filled rants about any company, including RM. What I do wonder out of curiousity, is whether these schools still buy in to the support and warranty packages for their servers and stations! If they opted to drop those then they could probably secure your services on a longer term basis and allow you the flexibility you say you'd love!

I'm not sure I understand what you're specifically asking for either! Does "IT bent" mean you think there is a safeguarding issue relating to a pupil and an IT member of staff? (Thinking bent as in the cockney slang type phrase?) If it's just more general safeguarding relating to IT / Internet then I'd spend a chunk of time looking at CEOP resources. Other useful sites are: Cyber Mentors (Cyber-bullying) CyberMentors is a Beatbullying project - Home Internet Watch Foundation (Inappropriate web content) Report illegal images such as child sexual abuse to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) CEOP (Online abuse) Thinkuknow - home NSPCC / Childline (Online abuse) ChildLine

Indeed Eldergeek [edit: and strawberry!]. Thank you for that. Ian I didn't mean any offence at all - I was actually thanking you for the posts you make. I read pretty much every one! My @Dos_Box line was referring to a new set of "rules" he posted in the Jobs forum and made in to a sticky. If we were to follow those rules to the letter of the law, then your posts would not be acceptable. Clearly that is silly, so I was suggesting to Dos_Box that he might want to adapt them to allow posts like yours.

My post was badly worded sorry. The move to SP3 is positive in terms of what SP3 does - obviously having the opportunity to use it and be supported with it is good. What I meant, but didn't word properly, was that RM announcing their support/release for SP3 so long after Microsoft released it is poor, to say the least. Your last paragraph depends on your role I guess. If the role is managerial or another position which can drive change, then I would say that's entirely the wrong attitude to have! If you know there are better alternatives you should be striving to achieve them, not putting up with what you currently have.

EDIT: Please be aware that this thread (as in unique thread/discussion) was not actually created by me. Posts 1-8 below were originally replies to a post in the Job section. Following Ric's reply at post 8 it appears the original thread was split, resulting in this unique thread being shown slightly out of context. @IanT - Thanks. The jobs you find and post are always interesting and well worth reading. I am happy to see them here. @Dos_Box - I'm not sure IanT's posts exactly fit with your recent rules thread http://www.edugeek.net/forums/educational-jobs/50399-how-use-jobs-forum-please-read-first.html Might it be worth a re-write? ...of are these posts now frowned upon?

I'm sure there will be some die-hard pro RM fans on here who will try and put some kind of positive spin on this. Looking forward to an entertaining read!

I've had this a couple of times! I think the answer is to get in there first and buy what you think you'd need. Even when it is company.com and company.co.uk it can get very frustrating and lengthily to resolve! I have school.com and all reasonable tld's (.net, .com, org, info but not any country specific) just to be on the safe side.

For me it would depend on the particular site. [edit] I've selected "either" [/edit] uk.domain.com / us.domain.com examples work well when the website is carrying a brand or theme and wanting to present international visitors with a different experience, yet all on the same domain. When I've used .co.uk / .com I've generally either made them completely different sites, or have them redirect to the correct domain. More of a user ease thing. I'm not that experienced with SEO stuff, but from my limited knowledge, I don't think it would make much difference to be honest.

Indeed. Yep, I'll hold my hands up. Saw the 0's next to the two thanks lines and incorrectly assumed it was number of posts. Sorry Jazzy639.

Or are you... First post by a new user and they advertise two competitors, one of which doesn't look great but the other quite attractive? (Wondering if they represent the attractive company?)

Hi Ozan, I'm itching to have a go at it too (I was wondering what had happened to my trial request but I'm guessing the office move explains it!) I'm currently using Kayako SupportSuite and looking at your product as a viable alternative. The booking feature is a huge bonus as we're currently using an old and creaking web-based portal and access back end! Will it just be the hosted version that is available for trial, or would I be able to trial the locally hosted version?

Yep! SWGfL use a completely unfiltered proxy for their SmartCache product, so we essentially requested access to it and filled in a change request etc. The way it works with us is that we specified the IP address of the internal proxy (in this case Smoothwall) which is the only IP that has access to the smartcache unfiltered proxy.

Hi Tom, I'll PM you my real details so hopefully you can marry me and the ticket up. I spoke with Chris(?) who spent a chunk of time with me trying various things inlcuding changing some of the backend registration stuff. My box took ages (really ages!) to reset following the changes and I had to reboot my computer too. After that I was due to respond to the helpdesk ticket with an update - but I haven't received an email! I'm happy to say I'm in, registered and updated now. Either the changes that Chris got me to do, or the couple of clicks tweaking https settings I did ended up curing me. I'm not officially back in the office until next Monday, so will have a good play and get as many staff on it as soon as possible.

At the risk of sounding ultra thick... what do I put in the server field there? The proxy server that the smoothwall box should use as its connection?

Hi all Smoothwall usuers, Thanks the tireless work of Claire G, I have a SWG-708 appliance on my bench for evaluation (and hopefully purchasing if all goes well). Currently, it's given me a headache! I've done what is described in the manual as a "basic" install. Most of the installation is fine (everything complete and I can see it is filtering etc), but it is saying: As well as not "being registered" it is also not downloading the updates etc. I've followed the manual perfectly and also reset the device twice to make sure! Does anyone have any ideas? (I have logged a call with the smoothwall tech support guys but they are busy and am still waiting for a call back - so thought I'd try this!)

What version of Vista? Can you not download from Microsoft Licensing?

Just to pick up on a couple of points: - Completely understand personal device mention in AUP, but should that extend to phones when all they can do is access controlled services via specific ports? - Not much support needed once working. Other than setting up initially, I can hand on heart say I've never been given a support task for mobile devices picking up email. - Why take a chunk of money out of a dwindling budget if staff already have a decide which they are willing to use (normally also using their own data allowence!) - Very valid point, and I can't recall whether you can do this with Exchange 2003. I know for a fact you can with Exchange 2010 so would also assume 2007? (It may be worth a Google search?) Those are all meant for discussion / consideration, not as a "you're doing it wrong" kind of argument. What works well for one school may not suit another, and you know best what suits you

Hi Si84, I think I'm still missing something! My previous post told you how you could enable or disable activesync for specific users. Have you tried it? I'm curious why you want to prevent people connecting though... If people were itching to connect i'd embrace it rather than look to flick it off.

In 2003 it is easy - just dont allow mobile messaging on the properties of users you don't want connecting (browse to the user in AD on the exchange box, right click, exchange tasks and disable mobile messaging.... something along those lines anyway - don't have a VM to hand!)

Awesome! That's the answer I was hoping for. (It means I don't have to wait 2-3 weeks for SWGfL to action a simple change request!). I shall give it a go once my VM for it has finished MS updates.

Hi All, I fear this is a bit of a noob style question, but I'll ask it as I don't know! Currently, I have a TS Client in a public facing role which users on the Internet can connect to via Remote Desktop. I put in a change request with SWGfL to allow access and the device has a public IP etc. Now, I want to place a TS Gateway in front of the TS client to pre-authenticate and redirect to the existing TS client. My question is, would both servers need to have public IP addresses? Or, could I assign the public facing IP to the new Gatway server - and would that allow TS connections to the TS Client which would then essentially have a private IP? Cheers

Twiddling my thumbs waiting for the Smoothwall SWG Appliance to come.... tomorrow! Finishing off Exchange 2010 bits until then.

As I said in my original post, I remain fairly neutral on the idea, and agree with some of what you've said, but there is a flip side as well. Currently a school who blocks access to a social network has no control, no supervision and no say in how it is used. If a pupil runs in to difficulty it will largely go un-noticed and unreported. If controlled access was available in school then an element of monitoring, education and advice can take place. With technologies like Smoothwall and Securis (for example), schools can be confident that while access is enabled, pupils remain protected. I would argue that a "what if" scenario was much LESS likely to happen in the above scenario - and if one did, the school would be best placed to action some form of intervention.