cheredenine

Thanks for the replies, guys. I've no intention of taking the mick when it comes to licenses and will strive to ensure we're up to date - the school had an 'issue' before i join which almost resulted in legal action due to inactivity.... I'll assume, then, that the ISOs i can get are fine to use with the correct key/licence combinations...

This i can agree with. Basically "give it a go, but accept that failure is a possible outcome from which you must learn your lesson and move on"...

I too disagree! I was having a similar conversation with my significant other last night. I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, but if i got it into my head that i wanted to be a brain surgeon i don't believe i would get very far. Even if i kept up academically, i'm not particularly dexterous - i believe being a bit clumsy in the fingers is a major barrier to success in something fiddly like surgery. Now take this situation and apply it to a weakness in maths or a problem learning other languages. These are then the barrier to success in a given area, regardless of how much hard work is put in. Telling people that anything is possible should perhaps be replaced with advice on recognising your individual strengths and weaknesses and defining your future accordingly. Part of recognising where you are strong or weak is putting the effort in, working hard, seeing what happens and not being disillusioned if you can't do everything well!

I have a Technet subscription and understand that the software licenced to me through it is intended for personal use in training, etc. But i have a question about the titles themselves. Specifically i downloaded MicroSoft DPM 2010 the other day to see if would be any good. Installed it on my test system and was happy with the interface, etc. Now, the software doesn't require a licences key, you just buy sufficient licenses and tell the software 'i have x amount'. What i am wondering is if this software downloaded through Technet is any different to software on a disk obtained from a reseller? I can't see why it would be so, so provided i make sure i'm properly licenced i should be able to use the Technet ISO to install it on our production systems, correct? Further to this, is it safe to assume that downloads of titles that do require a licence key are identical to versions obtained through other channels and can be used to do installs, provided i use a correctly licenced licence key, etc? Given we're charged £20 for disk media these days (and get a hastily burnt DVD-R for our trouble), using the Technet ISOs would seem to be a good little cost saving measure!

I know some people have used Rohos on here, so here goes with my little query: I'm looking at using Rohos Mini Drive to provide encrypted thumb drives to staff. The software looks good in theory, you set the thumb drive up and it creates an encrypted section and copies two utilities across to allow access. The first utility allows you to mount the encrypted section as a drive and access it through Windows Explorer, but requires admin rights. This works fine. The second utility the Portable Disk Browser is intended for use where the user doesn't have admin rights and doesn't work properly... 99% of the time when attempting to open files stored in the encrypted portion using the Disk Browser, regardless of type of file, you get a 'path not found' error message. Anyone encountered this and know how to fix? I've scoured the Rohos website and have found nothing helpful... Cheers!

Thanks for the responses. Registrations wont be the only use, but the full extent to which we can use this sort of device wont be clear until we do a bit of testing; hence we're only obtaining a single unit for now. Original plan was to use these for the PE department, they can register in the changing rooms, etc, then use them out-and-about to show correct form via videos, etc, etc. Also thinking SLT might be able to make use of them and maybe other staff. We'll see! I had an idea the new version was mainly a display tweak, but thought i'd just check! On to ordering..

We're planning to obtain an iPad for the purposes of testing on site here; we'll be looking at linking the thing to our Radius secured wireless and eventually using with GroupCalls' Emerge app for displaying SIMS data. Now, we can get an iPad 2 for a lot less than an iPad 3, but are there any downsides or show stoppers to doing this currently? We only want the basic wifi only device.. Thanks! Edit: Oops - just seen we're not supposed to put iPad questions here; Mods - please feel free to move as necessary..

No takers, anyone?

I've got a thread running in the VLE section, but it think this problem has transcended that area's remit... I'm trying to get Google Apps Directory Sync working and, in doing so, i've identified that for some reason our instance of Active Directory will not allow connections using the 'simple' or 'anonymous' LDAP protocols. I'm more interested in the 'simple' protocol and i'm flummoxed as AD should apparently allow such connections without problem. When i try to connect with an LDAP browser (Softerra LDAP Browser) i get the basic Root entries (Domain and Forest DNS zoens and configuration) when using the 'simple' protocol. If i use the same browser and tell it to use 'GSS Negotiate' as the mechanism it connects correctly and i see all the OUs i expect. This 'GSS' business appears to be a Kerberous compatible authentication method, which might explain why this works. If i use a MS browser (ldp.exe) for example i have no problems connecting at all. So... I need to work out why the 'simple' protocol doesn't work as the Google sync application allows for only 'simple' or 'anonymous'. I've spent ages trying to work this out and am not getting very far. Anybody with any advice? Just to flesh the story out a bit more, i've tried every combination of entering the account user name imaginable to no avail. The browser/sync tool will connect and bind under the 'simple' protocol, but will not authenticate sufficiently to draw out the OUs stored within AD.. Cheers in advance!

Spoke to soon - not sure what happened yesterday as its back to not working today in the LDAP browser. I had been reading an article about how MS browser tools can do a 'bind redirection' that third party software might not, which would explain why I'm having trouble...

Hmmm... I try the domain\user format on the LDAP browser and its no different. Really odd - as far as i'm aware i should be able to connect and see all my OUs with any authorised user account, but any details i submit only show me the basics as mentioned. There must be a glitch in my reasoning or in AD itself somewhere; as mentioned above the 'user logged in user details' works fine in the LDAP browser, but no submitted user details in any format works. **EDIT - mind = blown. Just tried the domain\user format again and it works in the ldap browser. Wierd, considering i'm sure i've tried this combination before! Onwards with persuading the Google app to find my OUs...

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread, but i'm back after a long hiatus to fighting this blooming thing again. After fiddling with an LDAP browser i have come to the conclusion that i'm somehow using the incorrect credentials to connect to AD, or using the wrong format somehow, or there is a third possibility blocking access. Currious thing is that if i ask the LDAP browser to use the credentials of the current logged in user (a Domain Admin account) it works and shows all my OUs. If i enter the same account details manually (in format CN=name,OU=Admin staff,DC=domain etc) i get problems - it'll throw errors and wont display the OUs i expect, just the Domain and Forest DNS zones and the cn=configuration thingy. Any words of wisdom?

The wireshark comment is interesting - have installed and tested and a connection is received, the data request is recieved, then the connection is closed. So there isn't a block, but still its not working. Not sure how to proceed - not sure if Wireshark shows me anything i can use to diagnose further now its shown the request is getting through... Had already tried using the Global Catalogue port to the relevant server - no dice...

Yeah, same error message! Haven't tried again this morning - scheduled a server restart over night, just in case that trick works... Can't think what else could be the issue! Edit: Restart has made no difference; just tried installing on another server using same config file, but same error appears!

Angrytech is spot on in that the problem is the connection to the domain controller. Problem is, i tried the exact same format as he did to connect, only for me it is not working. I have checked the relevant policies for the domain controller and unsigned requests are allowed I have tweaked the Symantec Endpoint firewall rules to specifically allow LDAP connections. This firewall has been such little trouble i had forgotten it even existed. I try Telnet to connect to the DC via port 389; initially received 'lost connection to host', but since tweaking Endpoint it now takes me to a blank command prompt screen when i run the command. Not sure if this indicates success or not.. But still, Google Apps Directory Sync wont connect to AD. Any further ideas?

So we're generally fed up of Fronter and the lack of decent support and are looking at alternatives. A school i went on a little visit to recently is using Google Apps and are loving it. I thought we'd have a look to to see ifs for us. Part of the requirements for us is that it links to another system for user creation etc, so that we don't have another system to maintain in parallel. So i found the Google Apps Directory Sync application and started filling in details. Didn't get very far as the ldap connection will not work. I've tried all manner of combinations of distinguished name for the server and login account, and have tried the normal AD port for communications and the Global Catalogue port while pointed at the relevant server, all to no avail. The specific error appears to be generated by the java library they're using to make the connection and complains about being unable to bind - this suggests the user details are at fault, but not sure what else to try that doesn't involve a hammer. Any suggestions? The specific error message is as follows: Error: Connection failed Exception: javax.naming.NamingException: [LDAP: error code 1 - 00000000: LdapErr: DSID-0C090627, comment: In order to perform this operation a successful bind must be completed on the connection., data 0, vece Further info: I did try using ADAM on another machine to supply a 'flattened' version with anonymous access enabled, but data extraction problems still abound, even if the connection initially worked...

Maybe because its not literally the same? Different single player, different Spec Ops, substantially changed multiplayer with new maps? If you don't like it, fair enough, but saying nothing changes year on year isn't really true, is it?

Ha! I just need to get better then, eh? Last match i played i got the Juggernaught Recon armour just as the match ended, so couldn't work out what i could do with it...

Normally i'd be inclined to agree, not being a fan of short single player games. However, much of the fun and longevity for me comes from the multiplayer, so i'm not too bothered, to be honest. The Spec Ops section seems quite big and varied, too, so theres plenty to do there as well.

Picked this up in Sainsbury yesterday lunchtime, got on to play after the little'un had gone to bed and t'other half had got to aqua-aerobics. Managed to play a few multiplayer rounds, a fair bit of the campaign and had a quick go at the survival mode. Tried the multiplayer first and was grinning immediately! I spent a lot of time playing MW2 and Black Ops, felt right at home here. First impressions of the support killstreak systems are favourable - as the points rack up over the course of the match you get each streak reward in turn; gives those like me who aren't so good at not dying a chance to get better rewards, but does mean (i think) you're always limited to only three rewards per round. Levelling up the weapons to earn attachments, camos and perks is a nice touch i think - encourages you to keep using a gun and presumably improve as you unlock new stuff for it. Start of campaign (made it up to the start of a section where you have to storm a factory in Sierra Leone) is very cinematic - don't want to spoil things for people, so no details, but its very much like a big budget hollywood film...

Apologies for abandoning this thread - completely slipped my mind! Cheers for responses so far.. The user account conflict was the result of a box not being ticked when it should have been, apparently. This is now sorted, but we still have the issue of teachers not being correctly linked to the teaching rooms. This is made worse by the fact that no-one at county seems able to address the issue if it involves a conversation of more than 3 or 4 emails - the chap that solved the conflict issue appears to have vanished off the face of the planet...

Right. We're using Fronter and have recently moved across to the county promoted hosted SIMS service. Previously we were on Serco Facility and had integration set up correctly between Facility and Fronter. After a fair amount of encouragement, county have managed to obtain and implement the correct settings to connect Fronter and our instance of SIMS via the magic of SIF. All well and good so far. Teaching rooms, pupil accounts and staff accounts have been set up, with pupils linked to the teaching rooms. Staff have not been linked, however. looking at the admin pages in Fronter, in the userdata conflicts section, it appears that all staff members are in conflict with two options available, merge accounts or create new ones. Staff are supposed to be able to log in to Fronter, SIMS and the county promoted Email system with a single set of credentials (their Norfolk ID); currently they can log in to Fronter with these details but, on the accounts i've tested the 'new' and 'merge' options on, neither option results in the user still being able to log in with the expected credentials. Bit of a stretch this, but does anyone have any insight into whats up? I have a support call in to Fronter about it, but i don't get an impression of any sense of urgency... Trouble is we're one of 4 schools that were early adoptors of this new SIMS service and it feels like we've been breaking new ground at every step. I doubt there are many other Norfolk schools in the same situation..

I suspect there are many such wierd and wonderful ways to sort it. Norfolk seem to love a centralised service, though, so hosting really caught their attention. They also wanted to tie it in with their Norfolk ID plan for a single sign-on to multiple services, which is why we had trouble with user accounts to start off with..

I've heard no rumblings to that effect, so stop trying to scare me!

Taking the hosting in house is something our business manager is investigating. To be honest we all would have preferred it that way, but the difference in cost was huge (something like £20000 to £30000 saving when going hosted, if memory serves) and so the decision was made. Not been a happy process so far - in effect we were encouraged to be an early adopter and went ahead, despite trifling issues like user accounts that couldn't possibly be made to work in the timeframe we were given for migration... Ho hum! Just to be balanced - i think a lot of the blame for problems experience lays with the LEA, not Capita.