mb2k01

I'm not sure how accurate this is based on their current product as I left a few years ago, but they used to use a re-badged version of Ghost for Imagaing, and Prism Deploy for package creation / distribution. When we essentially de-CSE'd our network and went vanilla we actually continued using Prism and Ghost for a while as we paid support for those seperately.

We don't (using RM SafetyNet). We could if requested by adding it to local filter rules. If I was asked to I would suggest that this was another case where education should be applied rather than removal. (Note - don't agree with their policies or values, but also don't think we should simply block something which has the opportunity to generate discussion and education)

This question was left up to me to decide a while back (we are state funded etc, but like to rebel occasionally!) I decided to keep the sch.uk address - It makes sense as everyone knows how to get you and instantly recognises you as the offical site of a UK school. We do still have .com, .co.uk and .net addresses which serve other purposes and either link to the main site or stay dormant. It gives us the flexibility to use differently and also have mail aliases / catch-all rules etc. The inital reason for the large buy-up of domains was that we didn't want anyone else to get hold of them!

I'd comment as above really. If your budget is that good then I'd scrub the idea of tapes and go for something like this sony hdd hd camcorder - Google Product Search We have several here and they are perfect - high quality + drag and drop video files.

@GrumbleDook, I understand the point you are getting at. The option of becoming involved hasn't really been presented to us mear members/supporters. In fact, it is us that are left to realising something needs to be done and pushing to have it happen. I agree that some would likely say something needed be done and then step back instead of helping, but I for one would be keen to contribute - as a couple of the admins and also DB knows. @Russdev, What is wrong with discussing an idea...? The alternative means ploughing energy in to an action which you think may work, yet might not, plus may be equally unpopular with site users.

"We" is an interesting word. I assume your usage means "the small group of Admins" rather than "the wider EduGeek community".

To pick up on an earlier point by GD - No one is claiming EduGeek is, or should be, a democracy. What I always believed it was, was a COMMUNITY.... There is a subtle difference, but with both you would expect certain expectations, behaviour and rules to be made available in the hope they would be adhered to. The problem we have is that a percentage of this community don't know how to conduct themselves properly, and are expected to follow rules which they haven't been made aware of in the first place!

Absolutely spot on Sparkeh. http://www.edugeek.net/forums/general-chat/46824-forum-rules-code.html

@GrumbleDook That is all well and good, but only admins and mods are party to those discussions aren't they. You can't point at the existence of discussions, agreements (aka rules?!) when they aren't published. It's fairly obvious problem with a fairly obvious solution. I might just add that with this specific issue I actually agree with you - I cringe when I read the vacancy threads with people sniffing at the salaries, but the above point is still valid.

Slightly worried about discussing this (see the other recent threads!). All positive though, so I'll give it a go! I knew a senior colleague at that school until fairly recently (recently took retirement). Although I don't know the ins and outs of the school well, I do know it is an ex RM 2.x site who then went with CSE instead of going down the CC3 route, and are now almost entirely Vanilla. Excellent part of the world. I'd not hesitate to apply if I was in the market / looking at that level. Sucessful applicants can feel free to PM me if you want to add a local(ish) contact to your new address book!

Rules that, unless i've missed something, none of the non-admin community have been either consulted on, OR had the opportunity to see listed anywhere.... See my earlier post and it's link to my previous discussion.

Seems like another reason for this to me: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/general-chat/46824-forum-rules-code.html

EduGeek.net Forums - Contact Us probably the first step SponsOr btw! : You might have a slow response due to BETT.

Oh dear! Network Admin 101.... You can tell I was stressed yesterday! Checked first thing this morning by recreating the error and the Application Log gave a nice long error stating at the top of it that it was due to Anonymous Authentication not being turned on for EPS in IIS! Turned it on and bang, error gone! Is there any major security issue with leaving anonymous turned on on the ECP directory?

Ah! I've actually read that page but didn't notice the name! I have to admit, E2010 was my first meaningful exploration in to the murky world of Certificates, and I was prepared for it to be a learning process. I decided to purchase what I thought would be the right kind of Certificate (from GoDaddy.com!) and went away trying to add it to Exchange. A few hours passed and I realised from jumping around the net that it wasn't the right kind of certificate, so decided to go back to plan A and use the less than impressive self-signed certificate. I assume all the messing around with Certificates has now messed things up for me? At the moment in IIS i'm only using standard ports and have the original server certificate on 443. The original certificate is also showing in the Exchange Console section. I'm happy to plough on using self-signed certificates at this stage. Do you have any recommendations how I can get myself working again? Short of a full reinstall anyway? (Saying that, I've already removed and reinstalled CAS)

Hi All, I really hope someone can help on this one - Its slowly driving me mad! I have Exchange 2010 set up and working fine for 99% of functions (minus UC which I've not installed). The one and only error I can find that a user would get is that when they log in to their OWA and go to options they get presented with an error reading: "The server method 'GetList' failed" when clicking on the "organize email" and "groups" buttons. None of the other buttons give this message. Google doesn't come back with anything obvious, only a reference to incorrect ports in IIS7 or headers, neither of which I *think* I have a problem with (I.e. not using odd ports etc). So far I've tried playing with permissions, tweaking settings in IIS and even re-installing CAS! Help!

For a moment I thought this was a new job venture for an edugeek member!

I don't think any one on any flavour network could honestly claim zero issues - besides, if that was possible we'd be out of a job! The flavour debate is often fuelled by personal experience, which is partly where I'm coming from -I've had a strong background in RM c2.2/2.4 to cc3 and also transitions to CSE and Vanilla from RM products. I've experienced first and second hand some awful support and shakey products / services. The second part of the debate is often cost. Again, because of my background I've come across multiple situations where there has been a choice to make, or advise upon. The fact is that side by side, a non-RM network (let's not even say Vanilla - pretty much any non-RM network!) will often be considerably cheaper than one with an RM stamp on it! The cost savings in many cases may be something you can therefor reallocate to services which you otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford - like Smoothwall for example (because another RM product, RM SafetyNet Plus, doesn't work the way you'd want it to either!)

I ordered one for mail.school.la.sch.uk and had to do the verification for school.la.sch.uk instead of the subdomain. Got the certificate within a few hours of ordering. That might sound a bit smug, but I now have next to no idea what to do with it! If anyone has any idea how to get it in to Exchange 2010 feel free to PM me! (The GoDaddy instructions dont work and the powershell command isn't working either!) Grr!

I've just gone back and read your reply to my earlier post, so can understand why you might have automatically assumed the negative rep was from me, but I can assure you it wasn't. If it's something an Admin can verify I'd be happy for them to look in to / confirm. It does look like my previous post touched a nerve though? Quite a passionate response! Can you honestly say that you've never had trouble installed software on an RM CCx network? You've never had to repackage MSI's or go hunting for RM specific MSI's?

Thanks a lot Webman! No it wasn't! I've never given anyone negative rep on here (and probably never will!), and when giving positive always put mb2k01 on the end so they know it's me! Out of curiosity, who is meant to be your "lapdog"?

I think that is the first time I've read a sentance with "easily" "application deployment" and "CCx" in it! I would partly agree on the speed / ease of station rebuilds though.... but you can still enjoy those kind of results using 3rd party titles on a vanilla network. The problem with both RM app and OS deployment as far as I'm concerned is that you have no actual choice over either process - you get what RM give you in their standard product and are forced to live with the limitations / niggles, and also the price. Sure, you technically have the option to get something else, but if you do aren't you moving closer to a vanilla set up for which you could have saved a lot of money in the first place?! If you want more information on Altiris (or to see it, as I notice you're in the same County!) feel free to drop me a PM. I'd also recommend having a look at the other native Symantec products - Backup Exec System Restore has caught my eye recently. The key summing up point i'd make - RM is "good", but don't be happy with what you've got until you've researched what you could have.... for less money / richer reward.

Are you sure? It may be different depending on LA's, but it's definately not a chargable option here in Cornwall / SWGfL (maybe Cornwall LA absorb the cost for us). Might be worth double checking with your GfL though? EDIT - That was badly worded. I believe that it is one of the features incorporated in to the lease/rental we we pay the LA each year for Broadband provision etc, not an additional chargable feature.

The Nokia E71 is the most annoying device I've ever had the misfortune to get working with Exchange. Nokia proudly state that the device works with Exchange, but in my experience it doesn't + their support is next to none. A google search will reveal many users with the same problem. Issues seem to arise from the firmware of the phone itself, picky nature of not working with certain individual configurations on Exchange and oddly the version of the Nokia PC software used! I have been given one which worked straight away, and three others which despite trying everything only worked on pop3 - defeating the main reason for wanting the devices! Sorry that's not more helpful, but at least you know you're not alone!

Answer: Excellent Line Management - Seriously! Give them enough support and guidence when needed, but enough trust and control to grow.