PiqueABoo

I've seen that with an earlier VMW: Assuming it's the same issue, make sure the VM is configured to use IDE disks as in Arthur's screen-shots and then get rid of any references to SCSI devices in in the *.VMX file, because at least one version of VMW still added a SCSI adapter even though you'd selected an IDE disk. Open the *.VMX file in an editor and look for lines like: scsi0:0.present=true, and if you find any change the "true" to "false (or just try deleting those lines entirely - I have no references to SCSI in the VMX file I use for XP VMs).

Suspect everyone with anything besides Dells has had that problem.. there's a thread somewhere on here where I explained how I worked around it by directly editing ZTIGather.wsf (the script that get the make + model) - essentially just mapping wrong or tricky (e.g. with slashes in them) names to the name I want.

How have you (re)installed it? I would have done this as an admin: 1) In a cmd prompt: change user /install 2) 3) In a cmd prompt: change user /execute

But what about a pupil managing to compromise a teachers credentials?

Just noticed this thread and the RTMPE (1935) explanation looks useful, but unless I've misunderstood I really don't see any value in that policy. The direction has got to be Flash->40d:1935 surely? So where is the significant risk in having the *internal* firewall i/f send a TCP reset for that or any other blocked outbound port? Someone on the inside can figure out an outbound port is blocked = so what. Someone in one school forges a bunch of packets that will result in another getting hit by resets? But why wouldn't the school routers be configured to stop forged addresses getting out? [if not then why not because that very basic sensible concept is older than some of the tech posting here]

"Not quite" in your limited view, my limited view is different and I see "absolutely, definitely", but again there are no universal rules for any of this. For instance, when I worked in the real-world I didn't have to ring the ISP very often because they didn't do anything for me besides provide raw connectivity.. was just calls to complain about outages, transit problems to corner of the world etc., none of which anyone with a phone answering support job would fix in 5 mins. --- With my tax-payers hat on and very little inbuilt socialist, the simplistic manner in which this topic keeps getting raised is irksome. In a perfect world the Gov[tm] would ensure all schools get connectivity (+preferably flexible web-filtering) same way they get electricity i.e. at pretty much the same unit price everywhere. In the imperfect real world I have no problem whatsoever with some schools effectively subsidising connections for others that would never be able to afford the real cost for a 1/2 decent rural connection. If enough Secondary, up-their-backsides Academies et al abandon their LA/RBCs/Whatever then I guess we'll see some smaller schools (Primaries etc. which might be feeders for a Secondary that went their own independent way) drop off the net, at least for usable teaching/learning purposes. Don't know what it's like anywhere else, but I guess the main difficulty is that some LAs/RBCs/Whatever might be genuinely terrible, nothing at all like that 100% perfect service you provide your users, or have several features you might not want at all bundled into an all-or-nothing deal? So what's wrong with sorting that out collectively instead of this fragmented every-school-for-themselves idiocy? Basically if this kind of issue does apply to your corner of the world (seems to me it could apply to lots) and no one is thinking about this specific aspect very hard, then you are not providing the 'value' I expect for my meagre share of the money paid for a public service. PS: Is Edugeek pretty much resigned to endorsing and being an explicit marketing tool for such companies (who will happily help bring about the above scenarios) then?

I haven't played yet, but having only just noticed the parent child capability I definitely will.. I'm interested in anything that might fit with 'meta management' i.e. being able to go to one place to get something done on multiple systems (independent domains). But if I did just have one system in mind that was using GPO s/w deployment then I'd still be interested because I'd get reporting for those frequently updated, not always installing happily everywhere, apps like flash et al. Pity it's written in VB but you can't have everything (I'll inevitably look but as a C-whatever person VB hurts my head). Reading the wiki docs I do like the dev - it all seems reassuringly clear and considered, deserving of some tech equivalent of that plain english campaign Crystal Mark.

There are no universal rules for any of this. For instance on the LA network here you get the specified speeds, you can change the bandwidth (+/- a cost of course!) and subject to where you are, the commercial connections costs can be much more expensive. Having made and managed everything re. private sector Internet connections beginning in the early 90s I'd be perfectly happy with d-i-y, but I'd be equally happy not doing that because I know first hand about some of the grief you can get. ::wonders:: How many folk will bend the pros/cons towards d-i-y because they want to play with something new for them? ::concludes:: Probably a serious percentage, given how many techs are hooked on this week's shiny new s/w, gadgets etc.

Just? I programatically import and link a fully formed suite of GPOs from a 'master' system as part of the config for a new off-the-shelf system. Trust me, you might be OK but it is not necessarily that simple: 1) Old-style GPOs may have references to SIDs, computer names and the like that do not exist on the new system - you ought to make a migration table to handle those, but this doesn't work for some of the default CSE extensions e.g. folder redirection settings which live in some INI file as opposed to the GPO's registry.pol(s). 2) GPOs with GPPs are much more prone to the SIDs et al problem because the targeting is so very useful and you will often target OUs, groups etc. Haven't gotten around to checking 2008 R2 (SP1) yet because I'd made the workaround and don't care now, but certainly on 2008 policy imports a migration table did NOT modify preferences either. I have some fiddly code patching GPO registry.pols, INIs and GPP *.xml files from my master to make them perfectly match the new system.

I'll bite: Why a screen saver?

Imagine having to pay people to look after a school network! ;b That something is "free" (please let's skip the when is/isn't Zimbra free debate) doesn't disappear the need for resources to host, configure, manage and support it... and probably ditto for added industrial strength de-spamming/AV etc. Edugeeks don't often seem to factor in the cost of their time for doing things like Live@Edu/Google Apps/Whatever. One tentative conclusion you *could* draw: They have lots of time to spare and the "hard, perpetually busy" talk we frequently hear, is in fact a crock.

What about powershell/winrm, does that change or not? I use currently use the generics https://ps.outlook.com/powershell, that gets redirected to the appropriate URI.

Similarly, SP1 for Win7/2008 R2 was only released very recently and I've encountered some issues that made me think it worth the wait (now fixed luckily).

Well someone has to say it: Mr GrumbleDook, how dare you berate us for this and that aspect of our future plans for our systems when you apparently don't have such a fundamentally significant date, one I'm reasonably confident is known by most of us, at your finger tips? ;b -- Meanwhile, questions for GD, Spannerwotsit or any other folk who do Authoritative[tm] for a hobby: 1) List some compelling, pragmatic reasons why a system happily running XP, IE8, FF-de-jour or whatever together with a large prior investment in software for that platform, shouldn't keep doing that until at least 2013 (when the next Windows *may* hit the streets). Please skip the old drivers for new h/w issue, we all know about that. Don't forget to include any supporting evidence re. improvement in educational attainment. 2) Do Primary schools exist?

Plus ca change.. fortunately manglement in this country appears to be acquiring new skills in those areas courtesy of the ICT budget shenanigans and it will take someone really dim and blinkered to disregard them. What weight? Perhaps this is a net generational thing, but I thought half the point of the Internet was you can go out and get raw data to use for your very own conclusions and bypass all that spin, shallowness, idiocy. I might trust some writers here and there, but never a publication.

Don't use computer names, it breaks if you: a) Zap from AD then rebuild/reimage a computer with the same name, b) Rename a computer. I would use computer SIDs instead and (ephemerally) translate those to names whenever I needed to display them.

**Some** of it.. as in the bit that aren't: a) significantly dodging tax, b) secondary public sector (doing quite nicely thanks, providing services to the public sector).

Probably easier if you fire up the Advanced Firewall (WFAS) MMC.

Some of you probably ought to read this bit from the Protection of Freedoms Bill: (1) Subsection (2) applies in relation to any processing of a child’s biometric information by or on behalf of the relevant authority of— (a) a school, (b) a 16 to 19 Academy, or © a further education institution. (2) The relevant authority must ensure that a child’s biometric information is not processed unless— (a) each parent of the child consents to the information being processed, or (b) such consent is not required in one or more cases and is given in any other case. (3) See section 27 for further provision about consent (including when consent is not required). (4) But if, at any time, the child— (a) refuses to participate in, or continue to participate in, anything that involves the processing of the child’s biometric information, or (b) otherwise objects to the processing of that information, the relevant authority must ensure that the information is not processed, irrespective of any consent given by a parent of the child under subsection (2). (5) Subsection (6) applies in relation to any child whose biometric information, by virtue of this section, may not be processed. (6) The relevant authority must ensure that reasonable alternative means are available by which the child may do, or be subject to, anything which the child would have been able to do, or be subject to, had the child’s biometric information been processed. Exceptions and further provision about consent (1) For the purposes of section 26(2), the consent of a parent is not required if the relevant authority is satisfied that— (a) the parent cannot be found, (b) the parent lacks capacity (within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to give consent, © the welfare of the child requires that the parent is not contacted, or (d) it is otherwise not reasonably practicable to obtain the consent of the parent.

I presume that's a dedicated Solus3 server using umm.. "modern" amounts of resources? If so then fair enough for that aspect, but given that it is the year 2011 the majority of those schools around here have their 1-4 admin PCs as members of their Windows domain and whatever they prefer to use for s/w deployment ought to be doing the dotNet pre-req (to all their boxes regardless of SIMS).

No, it's not you so much as the perplexing (my words) "best possible way you could ever install dotNet4 is with Solus3.." line, which simply isn't true for most Windows domains especially when it's a relatively core, universal component like dotnet. Ergo, they're just not on the same planet as the rest of us or there's a vaguely credible reason for this e.g. lots of P2P boxes in the SIMS universe.

I just don't grok Capita and this apparent focus on anything besides standard domain deployment methods. Genuine question: Are there really that many P2P networks with lots of SIMS clients about, or are LAs supposed to be using this for lots of little P2P schools they can see, network-wise, from some server in LA-land?

Local Update Publisher allows system administrators to publish their own updates to Windows Server Update Services using local publishing. Has anyone (not SCCM folk obviously) played with this?

Just out of interest.. Sprogette's primary has and very NOT good wireless link between two buildings and the Head once briefly hummed and hawed to me about the cost of a trench with fibre, without saying what that would be. So very roughly, ignoring the kit at each end, how much has it cost anyone for say a 50 - 100m run?

I can believe that would cause trouble without troubling to read the KB. Offhand a better approach might be to make some AD group e.g. "Restricted Logon" and deny logon locally for that group on COMPS301 upwards.