Garacesh

I've tried VLC, Blue Iris, and XProtect Essentials+, but hey-ho, let's give it a bash for posterity... aaaaaaand nope.

I know, I know, Unifi want you to buy one of their Unifi Protect servers now, which completely defeats the reason Unifi got so popular in the first place.. But ignoring that.. If you take a look at the stock ubnt_nvr.conf, standaloneEnabled is set to 0, and rtspEnabled is set to 1. If you set standaloneEnabled to 1, the camera reboots and 3 rtsp links are automatically generated, /s0, /s1 and /s2, so that tells me these cameras can still operate in standalone mode. By default, there's also rtspUsername, rtspPassword, and rtspAuthEnabled settings, which are by default set as 1, a random-looking alphanumeric string, and ubnt respectively. If I try any of the generated rtsp links, VLC won't connect. If I try any of the generated rtsp links formatted as user:pass@*, VLC still won't connect. If I set rtspAuthEnabled to 0, VLC - you guessed it - still doesn't connect. Currently my conf looks like this: Cam1-4.59.32# cat ubnt_nvr.conf { "cfgver": 3, "links": [ "rtsp:\/\/10.11.[color="#B22222"]X[/color].[color="#B22222"]X[/color]:554\/s0", "rtsp:\/\/10.11.[color="#B22222"]X[/color].[color="#B22222"]X[/color]:554\/s1", "rtsp:\/\/10.11.[color="#B22222"]X[/color].[color="#B22222"]X[/color]:554\/s2" ], "ntpClientHost": "pool.ntp.org", "recordFulltime": 0, "rtspAuthEnabled": 0, "rtspEnabled": 1, "rtspPassword": "[color="#B22222"]ARand0m32CharsAlph4num3ricString[/color]", "rtspPort": 554, "rtspUsername": "ubnt", "standaloneEnabled": 1 } Is there something I'm missing here, or am I just barking up the wrong tree? Is this possible, or just one of those things where it has all the settings so it looks like it should work but actually it's all just red herrings? * e.g rtsp://user:[email protected]:554/s0

Papercut's numerous support articles about Direct Print Monitoring lead me to believe that this should be possible. From what I can read: Step 1: Install the Direct Print Monitor.. Done. Step 2: Plug the USB in and configure the printer through Devices and Printers.. Done Step 3: The printer should now appear in Papercut's printer list.. Not done. It just ain't there. Oh maybe it means on the print server, I thought, so I've tried sharing the printer from that machine and adding it to the print server, still nada. There might be some rare occasions where it doesn't automatically work, says their support articles. So you can do it manually. Awesome. What's the manual process? Step 1: Check the Printer List for any unlinked print queues. Oh, okay.. Anybody has this set up can decipher what pitfall I'm falling into?

Unfortunately, that's a user policy not a machine one. In this instance, Not every machine would have multiple disks, so we don't want it applied globally. Edit: I guess loopback policy might work

tl;dr OneDrive is causing problems on small capacity machines and we want to dump it in a different location. Most of our devices here have small disks because we have a huge emphasis on BYOD and OneDrive usage. However, we have a media course here where students are regularly composing videos where their components add up to tens of gigabytes, and some of the pupil's devices just aren't good enough to run Premier Pro etc. OneDrive can't stream files a-la Google Drive, it wants to download everything locally, so we're having an issue where disks are getting full after 2 users. Since to my knowledge you can't universally tell OneDrive to store files for every user in a different location, I was thinking about trying to symlink or otherwise relocate C:\Users but nothing I try seems to be working. It seems to want the folder to not exist before I can softlink it anywhere else, which isn't exactly going to work. Unlikely, but has anybody ever encountered something like this before? I could just slap a bigger disk in and reimage the device as a whole, which I'm starting to suspect will end up being the route we go down, but I was hoping to keep their OS on the NVMes they have to speed things up a little.

Another fine installation by Bodgit 'n' Skarper LLC.

Huh. Nailed it.

You can mandate a domain within Google's chrome device management settings, so (assuming username=email@domain) they only need their username.

I noticed that last night, but I seem to recall that one getting universally panned as yet another terrible hollywood reboot, so didn't really pay it any mind.

Finally watched the fourth Matrix movie yesterday as I noticed it was on Prime. Could've done without, really. It was alright, there's certainly worse movies to watch, but it didn't really feel like it added much. I can't help but wonder how much the analogy to Keanu's in-the-Matrix game studio essentially being forced to make a fourth Matrix game by the publisher is paralleled in reality?

Yes and yes. I've done removing the drivers from dev. manager and rebooting, installing the official driver package direct from the manufacturer, and the full synaptics package.

Is this a BYOD school? If so, you shouldn't be having to do anything, it's for the kid to make their own Google account. You could assist with downloading Office (which should work, IIRC ChromeOS can run Android apps now), or applying any WiFi certificates, but the pupil's personal account you should have nought to do with.

They do it for the same reason internet shock sites existed back in the day, for the same reason "it's just a prank, bro!" was a thing, and for the same reason trolling exists. Because it's fun. Because 'getting one over other people' makes them feel good. Because selfishness-induced schadenfreude.

We've had quite a few pupils come through our door (BYOD environment) with Win11 laptops where 2-finger scrolling has ceased to work. Some bluetooth keyboards, some physically attached. The only common factor seems to be Windows 11. The trackpad itself still works fine. Moving the mouse, clicking, etc. Google-fu tells me that there should be options in Settings / Bluetooth & devices / Touchpad but they just.. aren't. Sensitivity is there but that's it. I've also tried reinstalling drivers to no avail. Anybody else seeing this?

That's actually surprisingly cromulent and I could 100% see that being written by GW lol.

I'm not convinced. Two or three dudes with a plethora of wargear options sounds way better. Give you your Primarch, then maybe one or two named lieutenants or rando-roles (like Librarian, Chapter Master or the Harmacist Adeptus Biologis) But I don't think GW would do that because WYSIWYG. So if your Harmacist could take regular or Termy armour, or go with or without a Jump Pack, there's too much kitbashing needed which will probably cause a load of admin overhead at tournaments. Marines have waaaaaay too many data sheets*. I feel like they need to add extra rules so that you can't take 3 Chapter Master and 3 Chapter Master on a Motorbike and 3 Chapter Master on a Pogo Stick and 3 Chapter Master in Terminator Armour and 3 Chapter Master in a red birthday hat and.... At least with Drukhari all the named characters are all different and have a generic equivalent (except maybe Drazhar) * Sisters are creeping into this territory a little, too... That being said I am surprised IF's don't have their own unique codex yet, they get namedropped enough.

Honestly? Good. The SM codex has always been a mess.. Librarian.. Librarian in Terminator Armour, Some guy, Some Guy with Jump Pack, etc Could you imagine how bloated all the codices would be if they all followed the same pattern? Edit: You only need to compare the size of the Space Marine reference cards to all of the other factions to see what I mean.

Lol well that's dumb.. I have neither. I genuinely see no use for LinkedIn beyond figuring out people's organisation's username convention, and I don't have my information on a public staff list because that just invites spam.

I had one from "T-Mobile", spoofing 0141 643 9716, which is a post office travel money number. Seems they're ramping it up before CLI spoofing is killed off?

Wait, so they're dropping the chapter variant codices? But they specifically singled out Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Black Templars and Deathwatch in a post earlier this year, and the downloads page has individual indexes for each, plus Grey Knights.

Unfortunately, 'round my end when I was growing up, 'Pikey' is indeed a slur towards travellers or gypsy communities. So much so that 'to pikey something' was one of the common allusions to theft, because they get stereotyped as such. That being said after I saw your legal name I put two-and-two together and figured it wasn't malicious. But probably worthwhile for you to know Thank you for clearing that one up. I think I may have misconstrued the extent Steve21 implied your involvement with Bromcom when he said "Same with the linking to a blog of someone who has been directly advocating your court case on multiple previous occasions?". Unfortunately, I'm unable to edit the text out of my earlier post but I'm hopeful that this correction can put my misunderstanding to bed. However, I would point out that I think my previous point about you being viewed not as impartial or unbiased still stands. If you were to have pushed this of your own accord without Bromcom's input or funding, I could probably get behind it. Someone in the industry who, whilst not knowing much about MIS' in of themselves, has seen the discussions re: Bromcom, the lawsuits, and the idea of frameworks for procurement. If you'd have weighed in then, as you solo, or with other organisations without Bromcom? Yeah. I could buy that. But Bromcom's made the first move. You just jumped in afterwards. You have to appreciate how staged that looks. If this is as genuine as you portray it - and I'll be frank and say personally I don't think it is - then you've made one heck of an unfortunate blunder. Given the negative sentiment towards Bromcom due to recent events, this comes across very much as an attempt by Bromcom to look altruistic that, when you dig a little deeper into it, smells of astroturfing, and an attempt to control the industry. It's throwing their toys out of the pram and attempting to manipulate behind the scenes. Just the use of that word.. Independent. When it clearly isn't. It just really rubs me the wrong way. And given your lack of engagement on Edugeek until this thread, it comes across - and again I can only speak personally - as you being 'in on it'. Maybe indirectly. Maybe they genuinely found your blog post and wanted to share it because they felt it supported their position, and you've decided this could be a way to get your name out there more, just a healthy dose of good old-fashioned exposure, right? Pad out your CV some more, make a few contacts, whatever. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I'm just a cynical old git. But it doesn't feel natural or uncoordinated. I understand that public money is heavily scrutinised and with good reason. I agree that frameworks are a great way to stay above board during the procurement process, I've seen plenty of techs that I trust to be impartial and speak to the good of the industry promote them. I understand that some schools don't use frameworks, possibly because they either don't know about them or don't fully understand how they work. I completely agree that in this case, spreading awareness is a great idea. But who's trying to spread it? Are they acting in good faith? I'm not sure this is it, chief.

....... Would somebody. Please. Please. Tell me in what world the error No credentials are available in the security package indicates that you can't move a VM if it's connected to a virtual switch, where a virtual switch of a matching name doesn't exist on the recipient host? Because why wouldn't you not want to fail with a completely irrelevant error message instead of just flagging up a "Hey, look, the switch doesn't exist, so we'll move it but not connect its network adapter, you cool with that?" warning. Dinkelbeeerg Microsoooooft! Solution: Disconnect its network adapter, the initiate the move via Move-VM on the current host.

I've set up a new Hypervisor to retire out oldest one but I can't seem to shift any VMs over to it. There was a n error during move operation. Virtual machine migration operation failed at migration source. Failed to establish a connection with the host 'NewHost.domain.tld': No credentials are available in the security package (0x8009030E). The Virtual Machine Management Service failed to authenticate the connection for a Virtual Machine migration at the source host: no suitable credentials available. Make sure the operation is initiated on the source host of the migration, or the source host is configured to use Kerberos for the authentication of migration connections and Constrained Delegation is enabled for the host in Active Directory. The recipient server is a new Server 2022 Datacenter build. The current host server is Server 2016 Datacenter Core. Both servers are members of the same domain. I have tried initiating the move from Hyper-V manager on the recipient server, and from Move-VM on the host server. Both machines have Enable incoming and outgoing live migrations enabled. I have tried adding exact IP addresses/32 of both servers to both servers, and range address/24. They are both in the same IP range. Failing this, I have also tried enabling Use any available network for live migration on both servers. [*]Both AD Computer objects have cifs and Microsoft Virtual System Migration Service delegation enabled in AD, trusting the other server, with Use Kerberos only enabled. I've even tried adding Hyper-V Replica Service and Microsoft Virtual Console Service for good measure. I've also tried both Use any authentication protocol and Trust this computer for delegation to an service (Kerberos only). [*]The AD User initiating the move is a member of Domain Administrators, and is not a member of Protected users. It does not have Account is sensitive and cannot be delegated enabled. [*]If I try Move-VM with -Credential specified, I get Move-VM : CredSSP authentication is currently disabled in the client configuration. Change the client configuration and try the request again. which tells me it's not even trying to using Kerberos? But that may be intrinsic to using the -Credential switch, I'm not sure. [*]The current host's event log displays [*]The recipient's event log displays The Virtual Machine Management Service blocked a connection request for a Virtual Machine migration from client address '$CurrentHostIP': An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host. (0x80072746). [*]Adding credentials via cmdkey /add:$OtherHost /user:$DAUsername /pass:$DAPassword on both hosts appears to achieve nothing. [*]Enable-PSRemoting resulted in no change. [*]Dumping Kerberos tickets via klist -li 0x3e7 purge on both servers resulted in no change. [*]Restating the Hyper-V Virtual Machine Management (vmms) service on both servers resulted in no change. At a loss of where to go here. Every single google result is telling me I've done it right, and I don't recall every having to do anything beyond cifs/MVSM Service in previous lives.

Oh, wow, I think I gave the group too much credit! "to promote best practice in the field of education procurement"? Given the context of the lawsuit this sounds very much like a sour-grapes attempt to control what is and isn't seen as acceptable in procurement. 'Raise awareness'? 'Promote'? None of this implies any discussion at all. It's 'we have the answers, listen to us'. Not a good look!

I don't want to be seen as dogpiling, but I have to agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread. Bromcom have garnered a lot of ill will with the recent lawsuit. It could be argued that this is an attempt to start an open think-tank to get a better understanding of what schools' requirements are in an MIS, to which we could point to you openly advocating for it via an official Bromcom channel rather than a sock puppet account. Sure, the discussions would be used to improve Bromcom, but as long as everything was kept open and transparent, every MIS vendor could use it. SIMS, iSAMS, Arbor, etc. This would not be a band thing. If this is the case, it is very poorly-executed. It could be just as easily argued that this is an underhanded attempt at astroturfing. You use the term independent, yet the group is funded directly by Bromcom with no mention of any funding from competitors*, which throws its entire so-called independence into question. You then bring in somebody who is advocating on your behalf on your ongoing litigation* who, whilst the account has existed for a while, has clearly never felt a need to join any education discussions regarding procurement (or literally anything at all) until an hour and a half after this thread was created. That looks incredibly suspicious. Colluded, even. I couldn't imagine somebody who couldn't find a single thing to post about for near a decade being active enough to spot a thread linking to his own blog that quickly. Turning our attention to Paul for a moment, your LinkedIn profile displays no indication of you having ever worked within schools. Forgive me if I'm misinformed, but the closest thing I could see is Market testing with clients inclusive of the NHS, DfE, local government, and Primary Care when you worked for BT Global Services, and several instances of you consulting for education (but not working directly for). I question whether you have a thorough understanding of MIS requirements in schools, or whether you're just speaking from your experience with procurement frameworks as a consultant. As to the blog post cited, with respect, that's a whole lot of words to say not really much at all - which is pretty typical for LinkedIn, truth be told. Tl;dr: Some risks exist. We all know this, those same risks are brought up time and time again when people discuss procurement. I would also draw attention to part of your 3-bullet-point summary: Impartial Consultation: Schools require unbiased help to steer through the procurement labyrinth, upholding objectivity and accountability. For what it's worth, there are many occasions with which I'd agree. But you ain't that any more. Getting involved with the lawsuit? Jumping on EduGeek for the first time in 9 just to be another corporate mouthpiece? How are any of us supposed to consider you unbiased? C'mon now, Bromcom. Be better. If you want to help, this isn't the way to do it. * As I do not have a LinkedIn account, nor any desire to participate in the world's largest collective love letter to stroking one's ego, I can't actually see the group. Where denoted, I'm relying on other posts in this thread for info.