sparkeh

Another one for Karrimor. Dead comfy and last ages.

This of course is true. But you won't get a reply because there is no argument against it so let's argue about webforms instead

@DGardiner what box is it? I am running VMs on our old S4 but needed to enable Intel Virtualisation and Execute Disable Bit in the BIOS.

So the Photoshop installation fails with exit code 16 which I have looked up on the Adobe website: https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/Install_Error_codes_CC.html Apparently it means it can't find the deployment file. First of all check that the files have been sent to the distribution point.

So I can see from the log that Photoshop (first app to install) fails to install and as the step is not set to continue on error, the whole step bombs out and nothing is installed. Can you check appenforce.log for more info.

@elsiegee40 sure!

Yes you are right, seems ok for me too

@protocol can you check the permissions on your log file, I can't access it

Just tested, if I set an auto proxy on an iOS device but leave the URL blank then it picks up the wpad (well chrome does anyway). Wonder if you can push this out with an MDM...

To make it work automatically you need to add entries to either DHCP or DNS (or both - different browsers respect different options). Here's a good guide: https://findproxyforurl.com/wpad-introduction/

Has something changed since ICO issued this: https://ico.org.uk/media/1635/fees_cost_of_compliance_exceeds_appropriate_limit.pdf The example given is of charging £850 to supply information under the act. This is of course if the reasonable limit is exceeded which probably does not apply in this case, but still, its not as clear cut as you can't charge.

Just wacked Windows Server on our old S4. Works perfectly. New server for us!

The point is a very simple one, I have stated a few times and I am certain you understand it very well despite obfuscation. I’ll break it down: 1) The FOIA places responsibility on both parties (requester and responder) to a) make a request within the rules of the FOIA and b) to respond to valid FOI requests within the rules. 2) An organisation receiving a request can seek advice from the ICO. In this case the ICO has advised that the request is not valid. Now we can go round the houses and fill many pages of this forum about our feelings about this advice but hey, it’s irrelevant. The ICO has taken a position so the debate is fruitless. Its much more constructive to appeal to the ICO if you feel wronged. Or you could amend the request right? I am at a loss to understand why you won’t fulfil your responsibilities yet feel that schools should respond to an invalid request. I am a great believer in the FOIA but also believe that it should be done right, which, according to the ICO, you are not. And when deciding if your request should be responded to, that’s all that really matters. I would genuinely be interested in an proper answer to the points above but am resigned to more obfustication [emoji53]

You wish to berate schools for not complying with responsibilities under the FOIA but won’t accept your own. It’s a two way street [emoji3]

Again, you have not complied with the FOIA by following the rules to submit a valid request as judged by the ICO. A fact that you have studiously ignored. It is irrelevant how many schools have answered or how government websites collect information. The ICO is the authority here and has made a judgement. If you are as supportive of the FOIA as you claim then please amend your request to comply. It’s very simple. The rules are there for a reason and anybody who believes in it should understand why the rules are important. I await with trepidation [emoji3]

That aimed at me? If so, we don't have the desktop pack, when we went through it with our reseller it worked out better for us just to pick what we wanted.

So discussion of MS licencing has once again blown my mind!! :S So confusing right? The way it was explained to me by resellers is that you don't need to licence the actual *server software* but need to licence the servers and clients that you want to manage. We just want to manage non-server clients as the server licences are expensive so just have this licence on our OVS-ES (the qty being our FTE count): PROVANTAGE: Microsoft J5A-01181 Ove System Center Config Manager CLTML Al L/SA 1Y These are the client management licences (with SA) so we can install SCCM CB, keep it up to date and manage non-server OS.

I keep looking at our old box sat on the shelf and thinking the same thing. Someone must have done this?!

In honour of Ken Dodd. "What a beautiful day for knocking on the door of the Kremlin and asking “Is Lenin?”

Our last renewal for smoothwall was crazy expensive. We moved to Sophos UTM and have been very pleased with it so well worth a look.

Might want to check the requirements here: https://support.smarttech.com/docs/software/notebook/notebook-17/en/installing-and-maintaining/computer-requirements/default.cshtml and that .net is the right version (4.5.1)

Yep [emoji3]

SCCM versions don’t work like that anymore. It now follows the windows 10 release pattern. So rather than there being SCCM 2007/2012 R1/R2 SP 1/2 etc there is now just SCCM current branch. Releases are now, broadly, in line with windows 10 releases so that SCCM can support deploying the latest version of win 10. SCCM is currently at v1710. You need to install the latest base version and upgrade to the latest build. Here’s a list of build numbers and changes: https://buildnumbers.wordpress.com/sccm/

So from your description it certainly *sounds* like you only need the sccm server licence. The device cals are included in the desktop pack and you aren’t managing servers. The configmanager licence will allow you to use sccm only. However, seek other opinions as well [emoji3]

Not being pedantic just making sure I understand, when you say you want to keep the old jobs, do you mean keep the old backups but make them encrypted? I don't think that you can retrospectively encrypt backups. Going forward you can alter your current jobs to to encrypt the backups. For the old backups, yes you could use a backup copy job to copy and encrypt or, as suggested, it might be easier to copy them manually to an encrypted device/disk.