_Bat_

Does anyone know how to enable this in policies across a series of 10.6 macs that are controlled by workgroup manager? I don't fancy a trip to each one.

Does anyone have a copy of the above residing on one of their file servers somewhere? I have the licenses, just not the media and I need it ASAP. Of course, adobe no longer publish the CS4 trial downloads anywhere. Thanks

As the author of the video (straight off our CCTV systems) I can assure you the video is real - the part where it cuts out is due to (I assume) the fact that the CCTV systems are on motion record. There was no motion while the "lion" was behind the stairs, hence it stopped recording.

Spotted outside of one of our campuses in Birmingham YouTube - ‪Longbridge Lion‬‏

Thanks for this. Will give it a try when I'm back in the office.

Has anyone successfully managed to set up software raid 1 on an xserve without reinstalling the operating system? I'm hoping to avoid having to do this. I have tried the instructions detailed here: RAID1 w/out a Reformat | Krypted.com, but I get the error "could not unmount disk 10000", when running the second command. I also got the same error when booted off the installation CD. Cheers

Just asap - we need people in quickly as we're going to start moving stuff across to the new building in July. =

Vacancies - only just advertised today We'll be moving to the new college this summer, with a lot more equipment, hence the requirement for more technicians. The new network will have 100% cisco switches throughout, and we're implementing a cisco VOIP system and cisco managed wireless network. We'll also have control over IP based CCTV systems and door access. This is obviously just a very basic overview. The team currently consists of five members.

I have an SWF file that I'd like to use for the screensaver on our macs. Does anyone know of any .SWF to .saver convertors, preferably free? Once I have the .saver file, I'm planning on rolling it out to /system/library/screensavers on each mac using ARD, and then setting it as the default screensaver using the com.apple.screensaver.byhost preference in workgroup manager. Is that the best method to use? This is on OSX 10.5. Cheers

Just an additional reason why this could happen (it happened to me). I found that our OSX server hadn't integrated properly with AD, and kerberos was still running, so there was OD kerberos, and AD kerberos running simultaneously. This caused the symptoms you describe, but logging in was far more hit and miss - it seemed to be whichever kerberos server responded first. Disabling kerberos on the OD server solved this issue for us. Just thought I'd post this in case it helps anyone else.

When doing an audit of our network last night, I found some stuff in all users startup on some computers that shouldn't have been there and realised that one of our group policies is giving all client computers (windows XP and windows 7) what amounts to full read/write/modify/execute NTFS permissions for "everyone" on all local drives. While the C: drive is hidden via GPO, this obviously is merely obscurity. How does everyone else set their permissions for local drives? I was wondering what settings others had in this GPO so I have something to refer to when changing these? I want to lock it down as far as possible without breaking anything (I know that the permissions required will vary slightly from network to network, but I'm looking for something to start off with). Cheers

We do indeed have nod32, I think you may be on to something here. I will check this next time it happens. Thanks for this

We do use a proxy, which is set to the correct address in IE each time. I have tried allowing an affected PC "direct" access to the internet via the firewall and removing the proxy settings from IE entirely, but made no difference. I'll give it a try next time I come across an affected PC, though it may be a week or two before we get another report of it lol. I don't suspect malware (though obviously I can't rule it out), I have a sneaky suspicion that there is a mature group policy (designed for an older version of something) somewhere which is causing this to happen sporadically, but because it doesn't happen often, trying to find it will be a pain and may not be worth the amount of time it will take to solve, as a lot of our group policies will not be following us when we roll out win7 fully. It wouldn't be the first time a mature group policy has caused very odd behaviour on this network (like any place, we have had several generations of technicans, and not always much documentation )

This has been happening randomly across our network for a few months now. It doesn't happen often, we get maybe one instance of it a week. It always affects random users, and random computers across the college. So far, only windows XP has been known to have the issue. The solution is always to reboot, which fixes the problem. However we still don't know what is causing it. The symptoms are that the user cannot access any webpages in IE, they all just say "page cannot be displayed". Sometimes it occurs just after they have logged on, sometimes they may have been logged on for several hours before the issues occur. In our testing, we have discovered: - No webpage will load, whether internal or external. It has the same symptoms trying to access the web interface of a printer on the same subnet, which rules out the firewall - It's not DNS, because it has the same problem whether using the IP address or DNS name (both external and internal). - It's not internet explorer. Firefox displays the same symptoms. - The computers affected have been all across the network. There is no one switch they are all connected to apart from the core switches. All other network services work fine. The user can access their documents, e-mail (outlook/exchange combo) etc. Our setup: Clients: Windows XP SP3, IE8, office 2010 DCs: mostly 2003, a couple of 2008. Has anyone seen anything like this before? Cheers

Hey all Am having a bit of an issue with this, and unfortunately it's now starting to become necessary to get this sorted. Our primary network at our main site is 192.168.0.0/16. Recently we've set up a new server room on our primary site, with all these new servers on 10.10.2.0/24. 192.168.0.0/16 happily talks to 10.10.2.0/24 via a 3com router i.e. the gateway for 192.168.0.0 has a static route set up to the 3com router for all 10.10.2.0 traffic. This is the dilemma: We also have a couple of small sites connected to 192.168.0.0 via IPSEC VPN. While these sites can talk to 192.168.0.0, they cannot talk to 10.10.2.0. I've since found out that by design, IPSEC will ignore conventional routing tables. Unless the target subnet is specified specifically into the IPSEC config files as a tunnel, it won't pass that data along. The solution is apparently to add a second IPSEC tunnel, identical to the first, but changing the subnet specified for our main site from 192.168.0.0/16 to 10.10.2.0/24. I'm told that should work, but... it doesn't. Every time I enable that second tunnel, it disconnects the first tunnel. Is there any reason why I can't have two IPSEC tunnels, both with the same remote and local endpoint IPs? If it helps, the gateway for 192.168.0.0/16 is a smoothwall advanced firewall. The gateway at the other side of the VPN tunnel is a smoothwall express 2. Our exchange server is now being over over onto the 10.10.2.0 network, so it's now changed from a minor issue to a major one. Thanks

In Gambia specifically, it's pretty bad. If they are connected to the mains at all, then they will expect being cut off for half an hour at a time at least two or three times a day. This is just normal for them. We've taken computer equipment over there before, though it's usually been sold by the time we go back again, as with most other stuff we've taken over there for a specific purpose.

Just in case anyone else has this issue, I found this was a working solution: Mac OS X 10.3 and later: User cannot log into a workstation that is bound to Active Directory and Open Directory

Hi all I've noticed that kerberos is still running on our OD server, even though we want authentication to be made in AD not OD. I believe this is causing some issues we have been having, particularly with snow leopard (it wasn't that noticable in 10.5). Something must have been set up wrong on the original integration, but other than this, all settings appear to be correct as far as I can see. I have tried to disable kerberos manually, but only get this error message: Error unloading: edu.mit.kadmind I don't really want to have to demote and start over. Is there any other methods I could use to try and solve this? Cheers

Hi all, I have a vague idea how this needs to be done, but wanted to clarify on here first, as this is a production environment, and my smoothwall knowledge is fairly limited. I'l simply our setup for the purpose of this post. We have three networks. On the main site side, we have our our primary network on 192.168.0.0/16. We have a seperate network on the same site (10.10.2.0/24 - joined by Router 'B')). Our gateway on the 192 network is a smoothwall advanced firewall. A static route has been set on the smoothwall advanced firewall (to router B) so that the 192.168 network can talk to the 10.10.2 network. Our third network (10.5.0.0/24) is connected via VPN as it's offsite. On our side, the VPN is set up on the smoothwall advanced firewall. On the other side, it's set up on a smoothwall express 2.0. The 10.5.0.0 network needs to be able to talk to the 10.10.2.0 network. I guess the easiest way is to do this a static route on the smoothwall express to Router B, and vice versa. We know how to do this on Router B, but not positive on how to do this on the smoothwall express 2.0 (it's not built into the web interface like on the advanced firewall). I would have a play with it to see if I can get it to work, but being on a production environment, I'd rather get clarification first on how to do this, or a better solution? Thanks in advance.

We want to set up a system whereby our users can make themselves familiar with windows 7 prior to us rolling this out across our domain completely. With office 2010 this was simple, we set up a windows server 2003 box as a terminal services server, and install office 2010 on it. We'd like to do something similar with windows 7, however I can't see that this is possible due to licensing issues and the fact that windows 7 isn't designed for so many concurrent users logged in. I have one idea, but would be grateful for any other suggestions about how we could potentially achieve this. Thanks.

I see you can thank ryaneveritt for that

Lol. At almost 3am on a saturday morning, I have been thinking over some of the issues we have remaining (yes, I have no life) and the first thread I see is this one, which saves me having to create a new one. We've been having this issue ever since we integrated OD and AD in a triangular setup during the summer last year. I've not had that many complaints, but every now and then someone mentions not being able to log on until they have rebooted the mac. I've had them try and log on in front of me, and then try and log on to the same mac myself, neither set of credentials work so it's not something silly. Once the mac has been rebooted however, all domain users can log on fine - nothing else is changed. When the mac refuses to log any domain users in, the green light is displayed on the login window, specifying that all network accounts are available, as per normal. Once I get back into work in the middle of next week, I'll come back to this thread and follow any potential leads. Just glad to know I'm not the only one with issues like this.

Point taken. However, the general netiquette of forums means that unless it is directly related to the OP, it's best to start your own thread. If someone asks "how do I fix this", then four years later someone replies with a fix, it will no longer apply to the OP, but it may still apply to someone else - it's still a valid question as someone else may have the same issue, but it's still not the done thing. If they need the an answer, they usually start their own thread. Just my opinion of course.

Most likely not for the OP, which most of the answers were directed at.

I assume you all saw that this thread was from four years ago?