@NetworkNerd said:

Try syncing /var/spool/hylafax/ as well as /var/www/db/. The latter directory contains fax.db, which will be everything related to virtual fax configuration (at least when using Hylafax as part of Elastix, anyway).

Awesome, thanks. That seems to do the trick!

@IRJ said:

We had a fairly difficult time finding someone that was properly qualified for a network admin position within our company. We had hundreds of applicants, but very few that were qualified for the position

That's what we keep seeing. Lots of people out of work but most out of work for a reason. Unskilled or "mis" skilled - having skills that are over saturated and lacking the ones needed in the market. Or being in the wrong location and unwilling to relocate.

@NetworkNerd said:

The biggest problem I have ever had is manually setting the controller ip / host name in an access point after moving the controller to another machine for one reason or another. But I am with @JaredBusch in that I still love their equipment.

The simple trick to this is to use a DNS entry. All the UniFi AP have a hard coded DNS name they attempt to contact for the controller if the IP they have from last contact does not work.
The not simple but still easy way is to SSH in and issues a few commands. The downside to this is a loss of programming as it resets the unit and it has to be re-adopted.

I must admit this looks pretty cool.

@DanaR said:

@scottalanmiller Don't worry, she has a high CHA.

It's true, she does.

AWESOME!

Congrats 🙂

They bought a company who made a nice office suite called QuickOffice (which now kinda sucks).

They already have Drive (which should be the catch all for opening and saving documents).

And now they make additional apps? What's the point indeed.

I love Google products & services, but I have serious concerns about their direction all the time, it's like all the smart kids have really bad A.D.D. (not knocking on anyone that has this) and can't see a product through long enough to make a real competitive product.

@JaredBusch said:

@scottalanmiller said:

When you buy bandwidth people should expect you to use it. If they aren't happy with that they should not have sold it to you.

No different than how any home user abuses their peering by watching Netflix. The traffic is nearly all one direction. No one would ever call the obvious use case "abuse".

Something purchased is NOT peering. It is a paid service.

You're absolutely right. Netflix is purchasing the paid service to pump Xetabytes of data onto the internet to Cogent... it's Cogent's problem if there is a peering problem caused by Cogent's sale of such a large pipe to Netflix.

If Cogent needs to reevaluate their peering deal with other providers, so be it.. if that means that they suddenly have to incur more costs to connect to those other providers - I'm currently OK with that too. If that means that Cogent needs to pass those costs along to Netflix because they (Netflix) are the reason that Cogent has to pay the other peers - Fine... that's they way it SHOULD work.. not Netflix paying it directly to whatever extortion the other ISPs want to charge or else block the traffic.

Of course... if someone on Verizon's network put a sharing website that started making the peering more equal or unbalanced in a different way, then the agreement between Cogent and the other peers should be readjusted, etc.

Nice. Haven't played with OpenBSD in many a year.

I don't expect that any company is honoring that. I figure if anything else, they monitor the machines that have it set even more than the rest of us.

Realistically though... These are only the companies that have been caught. (How do they get caught doing this anyhow?)

@Minion-Queen said:

I was out voted in my house... Being the only girl sucks 😞

I have the opposite problem.

@Dashrender said:

All I can say is that they are still deploying an ActiveX module that digitally signed (and now expired) in 2010. Presumably that means the module hasn't been updated since then.
Frankly it's embarrassing for them to have to require client to disable security to allow these expired packages to be installed.

If that's the case, does that give them a tiny bit of leeway in the browser compatibility arena?

My last company's billing software used these same ActiveX controls that required your security on IE to be disabled to be installed, flaky install still at best after you jumped through all the hoops.

God was that a nightmare..

Sounds like a great project idea. Thanks for sharing.

@Reid-Cooper said:

Sadly those are all of the lyrics to that. And they ended up out of order.

And not correct either...shh...Google told me

LMAO, you think? They got hosed hard by the political machine. Maybe next time they will become bigger donors 😛