Posts made by bbigford

If you aren't good at scripting, here's a link to Belvedere. It does a variety of automated copy/delete/move functions. I have some screen shots of my copy, purge, and recycle bin rules. This has been manual before I got here, and I'm not terribly good at scripting. Basically the newest ones get copied, age to 31 days and get purged to the recycle bin, which empties once per month. The file server they move to, retains copies for 6 months.

@scottalanmiller said:

@Dashrender said:

What is your stance of the UK? They are moving toward this too, if they don't already have it.

UK is in terrible shape. They will follow the US into total disaster. The spying five are all less than free and have citizenry that has never taken freedom very seriously. Societies use the word "free" a lot when they want to hide the fact that they aren't very free.

The Five Eyes are strapping their countries in for a scary ride. We're at the stage where mom is trying to strap her screaming and kicking child into a car seat... Though the twist of the story is that isn't her kid, the car is a creepy van, and mom is a previous offender. Total kidnapping of freedom and it's disgusting to witness.

@johnhooks said:

Here's what it looks like now. Ignore the eth dialog box, it was stuck there for some reason. The second image is the wizard you run through. It's really easy to set up.

What OS distro is that? Looks good.

I haven't used SC Endpoint in some time. I've been digging and digging and can't find where you can include certain OUs, exclude certain machines, etc. I'm assuming it crawls AD because I do see All workstations and servers as the selected option. But, the default Computers container is not included as those do not install AV software at this point. Anyone know where to look in System Center? Driving me nuts.

@Jason said:

@BBigford said:

Still wondering though, how can you build a driver repository with exes, rather than inf files?

Maybe it has an INF calling the exe somewhere.

Your last post "WDS only uses INF" contradicts that statement. If it only uses INF files, EXEs are not needed. You are right in the first post that WDS only uses INF files. The second post is incorrect, INF files in WDS call nothing. Only INFs are used as they have all the info needed. I was just asking Dashrender that question because maybe he had some info I don't about EXE/INF roll ups. But a CAB file has the missing INFs, which is perplexing. Because I tore the CAB apart, then the EXE got tore apart looking for the INFs needed for those 3 drivers.

@Dashrender I found the issue... I ended up stripping everything out because I suspected something specific. I had disabled the original M6600 driver group because it wasn't a clean cab, it was various downloads, etc. I disabled that and setup a new group "M6600 - CAB". What I didn't realize at first was that the PC probably stopped looking in that (now disabled) group, but was still looking in the All Packages repository, still having conflicting drivers (original loaded from individual downloads, and the cab download). Still wondering though, how can you build a driver repository with exes, rather than inf files?

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

Maybe I don't follow, but how would having a server cluster be a bad thing? You're increasing your points of failure, sure, but you aren't relying on a single point...

I didn't say that it was. I said that redundancy is neither good nor bad. You are trying to associate the value of the cluster with the concept of redundancy. Yes, in that case, redundancy was a tool used to get reliability. But I think you are confusing the means with the ends. It is the reliability improving that is what is good. That you used redundancy to get here is irrelevant.

Haha sorry Scott, I think that misconception you mentioned earlier is what is happening here. I am hearing you say one thing, and associating it with something else, causing confusion. Some things should be redundant (like clusters that house critical services), but to associate "redundant" as being important with *any *product/service is obviously ridiculous. Did I break that down alright?

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

Ok, just wanted to make sure. I was hearing "two of something", obviously buying two of something is more than buying one of something though.

Doesn't mean that you have a way for two of them to be better than one, though. Redundant bills, redundant outages... all bad things.

Maybe I don't follow, but how would having a server cluster (just another redundant service on the network) be a bad thing? You're increasing your points of failure, sure, but you aren't relying on a single point...

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

It's Redudant: We're just talking about controllers still, right? (Thinking about clusters).

No, the term means "two of something". Nothing more. If you feel the term redundancy means something positive, there is a misunderstanding.

Redundancy isn't inherently bad, but it is also not inherently good. The term carries no such connotation.

Ok, just wanted to make sure. I was hearing "two of something", obviously buying two of something is more than buying one of something though.

@scottalanmiller said:

Examples of negatives or neutrals that sales people use and IT people turn into positives....

It's Redundant:

IT Hears: It's highly reliable.
What it actually means: It costs more because you are double spending!

It has a large ecosystem

IT Hears: It's so popular everyone makes software for it.
What it actually means: The product is so lacking in features that a market has sprung up fixing it!

It's Closed Source

IT Hears: It comes with support.
What it actually means: You are a hostage to the vendor and their is no incentive to provide good support!

It's Closed Source: I definitely agree with you there.

It's Redudant: We're just talking about controllers still, right? (Thinking about clusters).

It has a large ecosystem: I didn't really understand that one, with the market springing up to fix it. A large ecosystem to me would mean there are tons of different devices available for development on the platform, and tons of development going on. Like OpenStack would be something I would call a fairly large ecosystem...

@scottalanmiller said:

They are truly dual controllers. There is nothing misleading. The only thing that would be misleading is if someone says that dual controllers and/or redundancy gives you high availability. That's the misleading part.

When it really boils down, I think maybe the problem is not in the marketing, but in the assumption by the buyer about what they are receiving without asking all the qualifying questions.

@Dashrender Because the exe is just a wrapper for the inf. The inf is the setup information file and needed for driver installation.. Without it, a driver exe is just an executable without any information to be given...

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

@travisdh1 I do remember that one but I thought I had read SAM say something else. Maybe I'm just crazy. I'm probably crazy. It could very well have been that though. That feature was completely misleading and criminal to even put on a feature sheet.

As long as they only called it redundant. Most IT people don't care about reliability, they just want redundancy. So why not sell it to them?

I can't remember if they were labeled as redundant and it being a straight up lie, or if they were marketed as dual controllers and it being implied, which is basically misleading...

@Dashrender said:

Nothing says they have to have an inf file - they could be installed only via exe.

Assuming this is a business class Dell machine, Dell normally has a all drives rolled into one download. You download that file, unzip it, and it will expand all the needed drivers.

If it's non business class, good luck.

The exe is just a wrapper for the inf file though... You can unzip an exe and find the inf. I did download the cab file from Dell, unzipped it, and searched around for the missing drivers. No luck. They are Latitudes mostly so they're business class. The one I'm working on now is a Precision so that is definitely business class. Using WDS though, you have to use inf files, you can't select exes...

@travisdh1 I do remember that one but I thought I had read SAM say something else. Maybe I'm just crazy. I'm probably crazy. It could very well have been that though. That feature was completely misleading and criminal to even put on a feature sheet.

If you're just messing around in a lab, why not download 2016 so you can familiarize yourself with the backend?

I've read your article on the Inverted Pyramid of Doom (nice) in the past. I was thinking about something the other day when someone told me about their SAN having dual controllers, one for failover. But I cannot remember what you said about dual controllers... In a Mango thread sometime in the past, someone posted, "Well we have some redundancy, we have dual controllers." But you had commented, "Well dual controllers doesn't mean redundancy, because if one controller fails..." -bleh-. Can't remember how you finished a sentence like that. Help me out here? (The obvious thing here is that one box by itself is a single point of failure, regardless what kind of resources you put in it, it's still one box). But there was something specifically about a dual controller setup that sales people throw out there that you spoke to, and it was pretty killer.

@Reid-Cooper said:

One script to BIND them.

I see what you did there. It's very clever.

Wow, that dashboard is sharp!