It's interesting I happened to see this thread today. We too have a Lanier copier similar to @Dashrender mentions above, and we were not able to do scanning to SMB because of Server 2012 R2's SMB version as well. We went with the Windows FTP server approach to get around it. Scan to FTP seems to work very well for pretty much every printer / copier we have that supports it.

Yes. It needs patched to get all of the updates. It is a mature release at this point.

Two Linux only options in the five new servers released.

KVM support is there now as is Ubuntu.

Hmmm I will have the team take a look at this and see what could be causing this issue.

I'm with you on Google Apps. It's a good product but it is very limited and doesn't have the look and feel of modern apps. I don't like using Gmail either. It's unnecessarily quirky and busy. Google doesn't make things as fun to use or as easy to use as they could.

I think that the Chromebook model is better than it seems. Only problem is is that businesses are struggling to adapt to it. But it is a business problem and failing, not a Google one. Google supplies the tools, business can't grok them.

In the same vein, the Linux world has everything businesses need and have for a decade or more and yet almost no businesses have cares to go down the 100% Linux path regardless of the massive savings and ease of use once the transition is over.

Have fun 🙂 bit of a learning curve but an amazing tool.

I think of them as consumer. Hard to picture using them in a business setting.

@Joyfano Not a fan of qsee / lorex brands..
they work - but are pretty cheap...
the remote viewing can be a pain with the applications... have setup countless of these and they work - but reviewing recordings isn't as reliable smooth as it could be...

that said many have this issue in that price range... qsee/lorex are both pretty "Cost Effective"

I forgot to mention Theory of Constraints. It's a great way to shake up old procedures, provided they're the bottleneck. Furthermore, it can sometimes shake up headcount if some people refuse to change. This is a practice that I enjoy, as it closely mirrors what sysadmins and network admins do on a regular basis, except it's at a corporate level. One of the challenges with this can be bumping into standards and regulations. When making procedure changes, don't forget to keep your compliance officer/group in the loop so that they can make sure all the appropriate standards still apply.

@scottalanmiller Yes, I was thinking about the same. Need to test this soon! 🙂

true, which is why I'm not really even considering them for any of my current solutions

@technobabble said:

@Nara
RDS

In that case, why not an RDS Gateway? Combine it with RD Web Access, and you have an easy portal for users to access their RDS sessions with while still keeping things secure.

This ended up being a name resolution problem. FQN in the storage repository did the trick. Back on track now...

@Seth-Cooper said:

Very limited, only logs on the policy level for short increments (up to an hour) and looking across the Juniper boards it looks like everyone states to get good traffic logs you need to do port mirroring.

That's unfortunate.

@alexntg said:

@Minion-Queen said:

Just reach out to me tomorrow and I have Alex do that with you if you would like.

Apparently I've been volunteered.

Hopefully I'm not that much of a bore 🙂

Yup. It's SharePoint so you can get hosted or host your own. Very flexible.

Peeps

image.jpg

That's just it.. RSOP (or whatever the GPM runs as a sorta equivalent) showed no other GPOs being applied.

The systems weren't being assigned to the OU they were in, even though they were clearly in said OU, so the GPO wasn't being applied to them. It was very odd.

@NetworkNerd said:

@alexntg said:

There's some info missing. How is this application being accessed? Are people going to be using RDP, PCoIP, or something else? Is this doing 3D modeling, or is it just the server component to a client installed on a local computer?

I had planned to have them use either RDP or VNC to access the VM. The application will be completely standalone inside a Windows VM (no client-server software) and will be either Windows 7 or 8/8.1 (whatever is supported by the software vendor). I believe they support 8 but not 8.1.

You won't get a rich end-user experience with RDP, let alone VNC, even if it doesn't choke on lack of graphics hardware. VMware Horizon View does support hardware-accelerated graphics with certain video cards. If you're considering VDI for a small number of use cases, consider going full-bore and doing it out fully.

As a side note, don't forget to address Windows licensing; VDI works differently from server licensing.