Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
Christopher Fisk wrote: On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Wayne Johnson wrote: At 12:24 AM 1/28/2009, maccrawj typed: Ok, so how would you control access to 5 PCs numerous resources in a way where if one child is bad you can lock 'em out or simply limit his access to the games, media or key application folders across multiple machines? Never mind being in control of house-wide time/location login restrictions and after hours forced logout. Most routers will do this now no matter what OS you're running. Router's can't control if someone plays a single player game. Agreed, dunno where Wayne was going with that other than maybe he meant blocking SMB share access by firewall rule per PC which is not what I meant at all. If you don't have kids (or roomates) you can quickly dismiss the idea but I think soon it will be the norm in households as it is now in business. In general I agree. Price is too high to get into households as the norm, but it's definately a nice feature if you can afford it. Agreed also, morons still buy Home Basic editions of windows that lock them out of basic security features like file ACLS so it's a high target. I imagine there is a free linux server replacement for AD/LDAP that could replace the Windows server portion, would run on next to nothing hardware wise, and still allow XP/Vista/? windows clients to work as if attacked to Windows domain. Servers in houses is long overdue and but soon happen given the amount of in-home digital data services being put to use. It will be your $100K, multi-ipod, pc for each family member households but they're always the 1st given disposable income interest. Christopher Fisk
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
On Jan 30, 2009, at 3:40 AM, maccrawj wrote: Agreed also, morons still buy Home Basic editions of windows that lock them out of basic security features like file ACLS so it's a high target. I imagine there is a free linux server replacement for AD/LDAP that could replace the Windows server portion, would run on next to nothing hardware wise, and still allow XP/Vista/? windows clients to work as if attacked to Windows domain. Getting close to this with Samba. At work we've been running Samba as a replacement NT4 PDC for about a decade. Unfortunately, while Samba can be a NT4-level server, and a AD member server, it cannot be a full AD domain server. That's being worked on for the next release--Samba4-- at some point in the future though, as I understand it. Servers in houses is long overdue and but soon happen given the amount of in-home digital data services being put to use. It will be your $100K, multi-ipod, pc for each family member households but they're always the 1st given disposable income interest. In general, I disagree with this, and think we will be getting farther and farther from a server in the house. Maybe a server in a datacenter hosted and managed and controlled by some company that you then get a web interface to. I think it's somewhat part of the Web 2.0 transition. Look how few people even install email clients anymore. I would bet almost everyone on this list uses Thunderbird, Eudora, Mail.app (me), or some other email client, yet I believe the vast majority of people use yahoo or gmail or whatever web interfaces almost exclusively. I graduated from college in 2004--during my freshman year in 2000, everybody installed the provided Mulberry app to check their email (if they didn't use Netscape/whatever -- I used pine!). By 2004, the college had stopped providing Mulberry because nobody used it anymore...all their work went to their webmail interface (I still used pine). Anyway, the point of that semi-rant was just to say that I think most people are moving farther and farther away from hosting applications or servers at home. Not saying I'm a FAN of this--I don't think I would be subscribed to this list if I were :-) but I think it's the shape of things to come... Scott
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Wayne Johnson wrote: At 12:24 AM 1/28/2009, maccrawj typed: Ok, so how would you control access to 5 PCs numerous resources in a way where if one child is bad you can lock 'em out or simply limit his access to the games, media or key application folders across multiple machines? Never mind being in control of house-wide time/location login restrictions and after hours forced logout. Most routers will do this now no matter what OS you're running. Router's can't control if someone plays a single player game. If you don't have kids (or roomates) you can quickly dismiss the idea but I think soon it will be the norm in households as it is now in business. In general I agree. Price is too high to get into households as the norm, but it's definately a nice feature if you can afford it. Christopher Fisk -- avenj whoa, every time i look in here it's a language war :) * ChrisWhite blames avenj carpaski Yeah! It must happen every time you look. :-p ferringb avenj: well, we can all agree ChrisWhite is a heathen for liking c# -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
I'm not sure, but I guess you could do all of that with group policy
editor, and manually copying the policy between computers? A pain--
definitely...
my main problem with domain servers at home would be backups. That is,
if you're primary domain controller goes down, does the rest of your
network suffer (logon errors, missing applications, outdated
profiles)? I don't know how many homes are going to have synced PDCs
and BDCs, deal with roaming profile, access rights, etc. in a robust
and foolproof way.
Maybe one day...
Scott
On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:24 AM, maccrawj wrote:
Ok, so how would you control access to 5 PCs numerous resources in
a way where if one child is bad you can lock 'em out or simply limit
his access to the games, media or key application folders across
multiple machines? Never mind being in control of house-wide time/
location login restrictions and after hours forced logout.
If you don't have kids (or roomates) you can quickly dismiss the
idea but I think soon it will be the norm in households as it is now
in business.
Scott Sipe wrote:
Hey, meant to reply earlier sorry I didn't...
completely agree with below...
don't think there's really any need for you to have a home domain
server (adds way more complexity than is needed and desired!) and
without that, any other old edition of windows is just as good, imho.
Ubuntu Linux could certainly be an adventure if you feel like it :-)
Scott
On Jan 27, 2009, at 5:58 PM, maccrawj wrote:
IMHO if your not running at least domain+DHCP+DNS+NTP from 2K*
server there is little point to running server editions of
windows at all. There are roles for member servers just running
dedicated apps such as SQL, Apache, Samba but then what's the
point to paying top $ to use server stand-alone (vs DC) when it's
cheaper to run them on tweaked XP Pro or linux? This of course in
the context of a home setup, business is another ball game.
2K3 vs. 2k3R2 vs. 2k8 I could not tell you pro/con of the choice
and I too feel 2K is just fine but also feel the itch to move up.
At some point I still intend to upgrade to 2K3 just because I have
it should know my way around it.
DHSinclair wrote:
I truly apologize for this one. I have totally NOT kept up with
this.
Sorry.
My server now runs Win2000 Server. It is at SP4. But, I suspect
that this level of OS is soon to be no longer supported and/or
able to be WinUpdate-able. SO,...
{When is goes I will miss itIt runs so well.}
What might I be shopping for? I have seen mention of Server
03 and Server 08. Yes, I have already read through OUR
threads about the SBS versions of same. Not thinking I need to
do a Small Business Server just to come current; and/or support
my LAN.
Can I suppose that Server03? is at the XP level; and, that the
Server08? business is about Vista-class?
Best,
Duncan
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
Well we don't do roaming profiles, too much hassle for too little benefit. Apps are
local installs, my docs get mirrored to server but saved local also so no issues there.
Single DC is an issue but it's easily recovered from regular automated backups. Even
with 2 DC's if one went down you're still looking at having to bring in a PC tech
anyway. Only arguable difference is you'd be up working waiting for the tech and that
can be acomplished by temporarilly enabling local accounts pointing PC's at the
router until DC was back up.
Still much less hassle day-2-day more advantages over managing multiple PC's
account outweighs that downside IMO.
Scott Sipe wrote:
I'm not sure, but I guess you could do all of that with group policy
editor, and manually copying the policy between computers? A
pain--definitely...
my main problem with domain servers at home would be backups. That is,
if you're primary domain controller goes down, does the rest of your
network suffer (logon errors, missing applications, outdated profiles)?
I don't know how many homes are going to have synced PDCs and BDCs, deal
with roaming profile, access rights, etc. in a robust and foolproof way.
Maybe one day...
Scott
On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:24 AM, maccrawj wrote:
Ok, so how would you control access to 5 PCs numerous resources in a
way where if one child is bad you can lock 'em out or simply limit his
access to the games, media or key application folders across multiple
machines? Never mind being in control of house-wide time/location
login restrictions and after hours forced logout.
If you don't have kids (or roomates) you can quickly dismiss the idea
but I think soon it will be the norm in households as it is now in
business.
Scott Sipe wrote:
Hey, meant to reply earlier sorry I didn't...
completely agree with below...
don't think there's really any need for you to have a home domain
server (adds way more complexity than is needed and desired!) and
without that, any other old edition of windows is just as good, imho.
Ubuntu Linux could certainly be an adventure if you feel like it :-)
Scott
On Jan 27, 2009, at 5:58 PM, maccrawj wrote:
IMHO if your not running at least domain+DHCP+DNS+NTP from 2K*
server there is little point to running server editions of windows
at all. There are roles for member servers just running dedicated
apps such as SQL, Apache, Samba but then what's the point to paying
top $ to use server stand-alone (vs DC) when it's cheaper to run
them on tweaked XP Pro or linux? This of course in the context of a
home setup, business is another ball game.
2K3 vs. 2k3R2 vs. 2k8 I could not tell you pro/con of the choice and
I too feel 2K is just fine but also feel the itch to move up. At
some point I still intend to upgrade to 2K3 just because I have it
should know my way around it.
DHSinclair wrote:
I truly apologize for this one. I have totally NOT kept up with this.
Sorry.
My server now runs Win2000 Server. It is at SP4. But, I suspect
that this level of OS is soon to be no longer supported and/or able
to be WinUpdate-able. SO,...
{When is goes I will miss itIt runs so well.}
What might I be shopping for? I have seen mention of Server 03
and Server 08. Yes, I have already read through OUR threads
about the SBS versions of same. Not thinking I need to do a
Small Business Server just to come current; and/or support my LAN.
Can I suppose that Server03? is at the XP level; and, that the
Server08? business is about Vista-class?
Best,
Duncan
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
IMHO if your not running at least domain+DHCP+DNS+NTP from 2K* server there is little
point to running server editions of windows at all. There are roles for member
servers just running dedicated apps such as SQL, Apache, Samba but then what's the
point to paying top $ to use server stand-alone (vs DC) when it's cheaper to run them
on tweaked XP Pro or linux? This of course in the context of a home setup, business
is another ball game.
2K3 vs. 2k3R2 vs. 2k8 I could not tell you pro/con of the choice and I too feel 2K is
just fine but also feel the itch to move up. At some point I still intend to upgrade
to 2K3 just because I have it should know my way around it.
DHSinclair wrote:
I truly apologize for this one. I have totally NOT kept up with this.
Sorry.
My server now runs Win2000 Server. It is at SP4. But, I suspect that
this level of OS is soon to be no longer supported and/or able to be
WinUpdate-able. SO,...
{When is goes I will miss itIt runs so well.}
What might I be shopping for? I have seen mention of Server 03 and
Server 08. Yes, I have already read through OUR threads about the
SBS versions of same. Not thinking I need to do a Small Business
Server just to come current; and/or support my LAN.
Can I suppose that Server03? is at the XP level; and, that the
Server08? business is about Vista-class?
Best,
Duncan
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
Hey, meant to reply earlier sorry I didn't...
completely agree with below...
don't think there's really any need for you to have a home domain
server (adds way more complexity than is needed and desired!) and
without that, any other old edition of windows is just as good, imho.
Ubuntu Linux could certainly be an adventure if you feel like it :-)
Scott
On Jan 27, 2009, at 5:58 PM, maccrawj wrote:
IMHO if your not running at least domain+DHCP+DNS+NTP from 2K*
server there is little point to running server editions of windows
at all. There are roles for member servers just running dedicated
apps such as SQL, Apache, Samba but then what's the point to paying
top $ to use server stand-alone (vs DC) when it's cheaper to run
them on tweaked XP Pro or linux? This of course in the context of a
home setup, business is another ball game.
2K3 vs. 2k3R2 vs. 2k8 I could not tell you pro/con of the choice and
I too feel 2K is just fine but also feel the itch to move up. At
some point I still intend to upgrade to 2K3 just because I have it
should know my way around it.
DHSinclair wrote:
I truly apologize for this one. I have totally NOT kept up with this.
Sorry.
My server now runs Win2000 Server. It is at SP4. But, I suspect
that this level of OS is soon to be no longer supported and/or able
to be WinUpdate-able. SO,...
{When is goes I will miss itIt runs so well.}
What might I be shopping for? I have seen mention of Server 03
and Server 08. Yes, I have already read through OUR threads
about the SBS versions of same. Not thinking I need to do a
Small Business Server just to come current; and/or support my LAN.
Can I suppose that Server03? is at the XP level; and, that the
Server08? business is about Vista-class?
Best,
Duncan
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
Ok, so how would you control access to 5 PCs numerous resources in a way where if
one child is bad you can lock 'em out or simply limit his access to the games, media
or key application folders across multiple machines? Never mind being in control of
house-wide time/location login restrictions and after hours forced logout.
If you don't have kids (or roomates) you can quickly dismiss the idea but I think
soon it will be the norm in households as it is now in business.
Scott Sipe wrote:
Hey, meant to reply earlier sorry I didn't...
completely agree with below...
don't think there's really any need for you to have a home domain server
(adds way more complexity than is needed and desired!) and without that,
any other old edition of windows is just as good, imho.
Ubuntu Linux could certainly be an adventure if you feel like it :-)
Scott
On Jan 27, 2009, at 5:58 PM, maccrawj wrote:
IMHO if your not running at least domain+DHCP+DNS+NTP from 2K* server
there is little point to running server editions of windows at all.
There are roles for member servers just running dedicated apps such as
SQL, Apache, Samba but then what's the point to paying top $ to use
server stand-alone (vs DC) when it's cheaper to run them on tweaked XP
Pro or linux? This of course in the context of a home setup, business
is another ball game.
2K3 vs. 2k3R2 vs. 2k8 I could not tell you pro/con of the choice and I
too feel 2K is just fine but also feel the itch to move up. At some
point I still intend to upgrade to 2K3 just because I have it should
know my way around it.
DHSinclair wrote:
I truly apologize for this one. I have totally NOT kept up with this.
Sorry.
My server now runs Win2000 Server. It is at SP4. But, I suspect that
this level of OS is soon to be no longer supported and/or able to be
WinUpdate-able. SO,...
{When is goes I will miss itIt runs so well.}
What might I be shopping for? I have seen mention of Server 03
and Server 08. Yes, I have already read through OUR threads about
the SBS versions of same. Not thinking I need to do a Small
Business Server just to come current; and/or support my LAN.
Can I suppose that Server03? is at the XP level; and, that the
Server08? business is about Vista-class?
Best,
Duncan
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
I still prefer 2000 Server to 2003. I also run the free comodo firewall on my
server box.
Every once in a while I'll make a new install CD with security patches and
extras added into the install, to keep it up to date.
lopaka
--- On Wed, 1/21/09, DHSinclair dsinc...@bellsouth.net wrote:
From: DHSinclair dsinc...@bellsouth.net
Subject: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
To: Hardware Group hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 9:27 PM
I truly apologize for this one. I have totally NOT kept up with this.
Sorry.
My server now runs Win2000 Server. It is at SP4. But, I suspect that this
level of OS is soon to be no longer supported and/or able to be WinUpdate-able.
SO,...
{When is goes I will miss itIt runs so well.}
What might I be shopping for? I have seen mention of Server 03
and Server 08. Yes, I have already read through OUR threads about
the SBS versions of same. Not thinking I need to do a Small
Business Server just to come current; and/or support my LAN.
Can I suppose that Server03? is at the XP level; and, that the
Server08? business is about Vista-class?
Best,
Duncan
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
From: DHSinclair I do NOT run DHCP, DNS, FileServer, MailServer, FTPServer, SNMPServer, STMPServer, CommServer, WhatEverServer. I do allow my server to be my WINS Server on my LAN. I do not run Active Directory. The server is NOT a domain controller (yet! I am still wrestling with the pros/cons of this). I suppose my server is just another LAN machine with special properties. That is my best description. My server is a learning machine so that I can grapple with What is a server? More later. :) Sorry if I sound dumber than dirt... There is one warning that Win2003Server gives at install time that tells you to set something up in 7 days or less or it will not work anymore. I only saw that once. I never ran it past a day or two. Anybody know what the warning was, and if it would screw up DHS? Rick Glazier
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
On Jan 22, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Rick Glazier wrote: Sorry if I sound dumber than dirt... There is one warning that Win2003Server gives at install time that tells you to set something up in 7 days or less or it will not work anymore. I only saw that once. I never ran it past a day or two. Anybody know what the warning was, and if it would screw up DHS? Rick Glazier I don't know--could it have been Activation? Scott
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
From: Scott Sipe On Jan 22, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Rick Glazier wrote: Sorry if I sound dumber than dirt... There is one warning that Win2003Server gives at install time that tells you to set something up in 7 days or less or it will not work anymore. I only saw that once. I never ran it past a day or two. Anybody know what the warning was, and if it would screw up DHS? Rick Glazier I don't know--could it have been Activation? Scott No, It was something I recognized as heavy duty server stuff... Maybe something like setting up a Domain server or active directory. It was something the license definitely required, or it would cause it to disable the OS. PS: These were TS2/OnePlus disks and perfectly legit. Rick Glazier
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
Correct.
--Original Message--
From: DHSinclair
Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
To: Hardware Group
ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Sent: Jan 21, 2009 11:27 PM
Subject: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
I truly apologize for this one. I have totally NOT kept up with this.
Sorry.
My server now runs Win2000 Server. It is at SP4. But, I suspect that this
level of OS is soon to be no longer supported and/or able to be
WinUpdate-able. SO,...
{When is goes I will miss itIt runs so well.}
What might I be shopping for? I have seen mention of Server 03 and
Server 08. Yes, I have already read through OUR threads about the SBS
versions of same. Not thinking I need to do a Small Business Server just
to come current; and/or support my LAN.
Can I suppose that Server03? is at the XP level; and, that the
Server08? business is about Vista-class?
Best,
Duncan
Sent via BlackBerry
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
So, do any of our partners have any offers for Windows Server 2003?
Well, B4 I spend the next few days shopping. :)
Best,
Duncan
{tnx Chris!}
At 05:34 01/22/2009 +, you wrote:
Correct.
--Original Message--
From: DHSinclair
Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
To: Hardware Group
ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Sent: Jan 21, 2009 11:27 PM
Subject: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
I truly apologize for this one. I have totally NOT kept up with this.
Sorry.
My server now runs Win2000 Server. It is at SP4. But, I suspect that this
level of OS is soon to be no longer supported and/or able to be
WinUpdate-able. SO,...
{When is goes I will miss itIt runs so well.}
What might I be shopping for? I have seen mention of Server 03 and
Server 08. Yes, I have already read through OUR threads about the SBS
versions of same. Not thinking I need to do a Small Business Server just
to come current; and/or support my LAN.
Can I suppose that Server03? is at the XP level; and, that the
Server08? business is about Vista-class?
Best,
Duncan
Sent via BlackBerry
Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
I am deploying Server 2003 right now,
I had to spend about 700 for each server plus CALCS for the terminals (169 for
5)
I would like to get it cheaper also.
-Original Message-
From: DHSinclair dsinc...@bellsouth.net
Sent: Jan 21, 2009 11:57 PM
To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: Re: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
So, do any of our partners have any offers for Windows Server 2003?
Well, B4 I spend the next few days shopping. :)
Best,
Duncan
{tnx Chris!}
At 05:34 01/22/2009 +, you wrote:
Correct.
--Original Message--
From: DHSinclair
Sender: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com
To: Hardware Group
ReplyTo: hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Sent: Jan 21, 2009 11:27 PM
Subject: [H] Stupid Question..perhaps?
I truly apologize for this one. I have totally NOT kept up with this.
Sorry.
My server now runs Win2000 Server. It is at SP4. But, I suspect that this
level of OS is soon to be no longer supported and/or able to be
WinUpdate-able. SO,...
{When is goes I will miss itIt runs so well.}
What might I be shopping for? I have seen mention of Server 03 and
Server 08. Yes, I have already read through OUR threads about the SBS
versions of same. Not thinking I need to do a Small Business Server just
to come current; and/or support my LAN.
Can I suppose that Server03? is at the XP level; and, that the
Server08? business is about Vista-class?
Best,
Duncan
Sent via BlackBerry
Mark Dodge
