dmj

Thinking about it, did you try running gcloud auth login

That would be sufficient permissions. Perhaps the API key isn't on your machine?. I'd go through the gam setup docs from scratch.

Look at the GCP IAM settings, Google Workspace and GCP don't automatically use the same admin levels, you can be an admin in one and not the other. I suspect the account you're using doesn't have permission to use the API - which is defined in GCP: https://console.cloud.google.com/

Yes used an older model for a 200M line of site and it worked well - this was only for 1 classroom but with 30 users (all the students had their own laptops). Would recommend this option. Another option (plan C) is a mesh VPN: https://tailscale.com/ (for example)

https://www.pdsa.org.uk/pet-help-and-advice/looking-after-your-pet/puppies-dogs/the-cost-of-owning-a-dog?

The whole premise of users having to interact with a backup process is an anti-pattern. It should be completely automated and only notify when the process fails. There's no method for catching errors in the script either. Sorry to be so harsh but you really need to rethink this.

The slightest mention of something vaguely political, or commenting on a job advert is met by an instant deletion by forum moderators, but rationalising paedophiia seems to be fair game. On an education forum. viewed in schools, by people working in schools. I don't think it's appropriate. just saying.

He married his 13 yr old cousin. Notorious is tame IMO

I forgot to mention the increased security around not having the latest OpenSSL crits to patch

To be fair most of the major browsers only announced discontinued support for HTTP a few years ago - and this is an educational site, we all know educational is at least 10 years behind the curve - so arguably its on track for the rest of the industry.

"Not supporting" is one thing. Actively blocking access based on user agents is just unnecessary bad behaviour, especially when you are 'supporting' the chromeos browser (running on linux). Get a Product manager on the case to get rid of this nonsense.

Ventura was released yesterday. There's also Google Secure LDAP which has authenticated macos for a few years- so I guess whatever the MS equivalent of that is, Active Directory is LDAP based so sounds like it should do it already.

They would miss a couple of chancellors a new PM and a few home secretaries in that time.

How many small towns with similar populations have more than that?

You have to take some of the requirements with a pinch of salt and do what works best; the ICE document isn't a technical implementation and nobody follows it to the letter.

Even if downtime isn't expected it's good to let people know if services are at risk. I've always informed users about changes to a production environment, it's good for relations. We keep griping about how NM's don't get enough recognition for the work we do and decent comms on changes is one way of helping to let users know of (security/performance/etc) improvements.

We use a Git repo with all configs that get applied to the system (automatically with Terraform/Ansible). https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/devops/deliver/what-is-infrastructure-as-code

Comms. You should communicate with your users when a major change is going to happen, that no downtime is expected but there is a rollback plan (you should add that to your Techincal Implementation Plan). It gives them confidence and helps them understand changes are afoot and that you're not sitting around all day picking your nose.

Best practice IMO is to automate everything that is possible as Infrastructure as Code for the following benefits: It is self documenting how everything fits together. Other staff on your team get to review every change before it happens There is a log of every change Rollback on changes is straightforward You get to test major changes before they go live You can instantly spin up replicas of your production infrastructure DR is built in You can perform DR in minutes/hours on the entire infrastructure Any problems and you just blow away the device and rebuild it as it's quicker than fixing

Can't comment about the current situation but I do recall a mutually exclusive phrase along the lines of "network access is not permitted" shortly followed by something about mandating the use of centralised printers. None of it really made any sense and whichever way you went you'd break a rule. We just went with what we believed reasonable.

I've had good experiences with digiexam when we were doing this: https://www.digiexam.com/

Shouldn't make any difference, RHEL and Ubuntu both have have supported versions of samba. Whichever you're most comfortable with - an LTS Ubuntu by the sounds of it. When I did this in a secondary it was RHEL7, but the University had a mix of Ubuntu (the Samba servers) and Centos for most of the others. The documentation is actually excellent, but like any expertise you have to know where to look and how to use it. For the applications (samba) it's best to look at their docs which are probably installed on the system as man pages ( "man -k" to search). If not start here: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Main_Page. For the architecture/implementation guides look at the RedHat docs - https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/html/deploying_different_types_of_servers/assembly_using-samba-as-a-server_deploying-different-types-of-servers (and apply it to Ubuntu - some of the commands may be a little different). I wouldn't bother trying to follow online tutorials because it's better to learn WHY you're configuring rather than following tutorials.

Don't do this. Duel logins across separate systems is crazy. If you want to run file/print services on linux join those servers to the windows domain. I ran 25000 users across 6 file servers users like this at a university, it's a really well supported configuration. Once you've got a stable base then migrate the RADIUS, DNS and DHCP. Once you've done those move the users/passwords onto the Linux Domain controllers apply the GPO from those and scrap the windows ones.

The 'support' you get with MS licensing is simply to be licensed, you don't get a support contract. The difference with the RHEL/Canonical suppport contracts is that you actually get support.

We used to get educational proces on perpetual licenses, is that not a thing anymore? Windows server had a 5 year support and 5 yr extended (linux LTS on RHEL and Ubunti are 10 year) so as long as we upgraded infrequently it was much cheaper to do this than paying annually.