Search Results

Search found 1033 results on 42 pages for 'jon rhoades'.

Page 3/42 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to start / stop internet sharing using apple script

    - by jon
    i dont have a wifi router, so when at home i need to turn my laptop into a wifi source so that both myself and my partner can access the internet. however during the days i work at a coffee shop and require the use of their wifi. i'm running snow leopard and i find it stupidly cumbersome to constantly be turning off and on, first internet sharing and then my wifi. any ideas for a quick n dirty applescript solution? thanks a bajillion! Jon

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 R2 Accessing NFS share without AD or NIS

    - by Jon Rhoades
    I'm trying to mount an NFS share on our NetApp SAN on Windows 2008 R2. Using XP I have no problem mounting this share without a username/NIS/pswd file etc, but the new functionality in 2008 seems to insist on either using AD or an NIS server (to "streamline" Services for NFS MS removed user account mapping) see Technet. When I go to map the share using "map network drive" no combination of "root", no username, no password, my username works. Using the command line mount -o anon \\172... :n or mount -o -u:root \\172... :n either gives me a network error 53 or 67 error Is it possible with 2008 to mount an NFS share without AD or NIS? If so what am I doing wrong? (Security is taken care off by IP address permissions and VLANs)

    Read the article

  • Active Directory using Samba/Open LDAP for user accounts

    - by Jon Rhoades
    I know this is the wrong way round... but Is it possible to use AD in front of Samba for our PC clients, so that the user accounts are in Samba/Open LDAP. Managing our fleet of Windows PC's is becoming more and more difficult with just Samba v3 - until Samba v4 comes along, it would be great if we could leverage Active Directory, but have the accounts stored in Samba/Open LDAP. Windows PC's are a minority in our organisation & Samaba/Open LDAP are used for just about every service (Zimbra/RADIUS/Intranet/SAN/Printing/...) so it will have to remain the definitive account source. Anyway, it probably can't be done, but I thought I would ask for ideas anyway.

    Read the article

  • Software restriction policies set in the registry don't update Local Group Policy

    - by Jon Rhoades
    The joys of a Samba domain... First off Domain Group policy can't be used until Samba 4 arrives. We need to setup Software Restriction Policies (SRPs) on most of the computers in our Samba domain and I would dearly like to automate this. (We are moving away from just disabling the Windows installer). The traditional way is to set SRPs using Local Group Policy (LGP) Computer Conf-Windows Settings-SRP but this involves visiting every machine as it can't be set using in NTConfig.pol. It is possible to attempt to create the SRPs directly in the registry: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Safer\CodeIdentifiers\262144\Paths\{30628f61-eb47-4d87-823b-6683a09eda87}] "LastModified"=hex(b):40,a2,94,09,b5,5d,ca,01 "Description"="" "SaferFlags"=dword:00000000 "ItemData"="C:\\location\\subfolder" SaferFlags DWORD seems to be what turns it on or off, but although this seems to work it does not update the Local Group Policy - SRPs still show as "No SRPs Defined". Where does the LGP store this setting - is it even in the registry and more importantly - Is there a cleverer way of setting up SRPs?

    Read the article

  • Squid Proxy Antivirus - Recommendations / Performance

    - by Jon Rhoades
    Due to our user's increasing expertise at downloading virus and the like, we are investigating adding Antivirus to our Squid proxy. A casual Google reveals several free and one paid: HAVP squid-vscan Viralator Safe Squid (commercial) None of the 'free' ones have reached v1 yet, nor do any inspire huge confidence form their websites (although of course I would rather they spent their time on the app rather than their website!). Does anybody have experience with any of these (or any other similar apps). If so are they suitable for a production network with 400ish concurrent users, and what sort of CPU/RAM requirements does it have?

    Read the article

  • HP Colour LaserJet Printer Hard Drive

    - by Jon Rhoades
    We are struggling to print Student's Theses on our HP CLJ CP4025 Printers (It will only let us print 1 at a time & typically they need multiple copies). Supposedly the solution is to install the optional Hard Drive. My question is: a) Does a hard drive on the printer make a significant difference? b) Can we use any old hard drive or do we have to use the rather pricey HP High performance EIO units?

    Read the article

  • Why is Apple System Image Utility so slow?

    - by Jon Rhoades
    I'm using Apple System Image Utility (SIU) on Snow Leopard 10.6.2 and I am rather disturbed it takes over Three hours to make a Netrestore or Netboot image. I'm using as the donor machine a brand new iMac and as the imaging machine a brand new iMac connected using target disk mode & Firewire 800. The hard drive size and subsequent image is about 8GB. To restore the image over the network takes about 4 minutes. Given that Norton Ghost will take an image in about 5 minutes (or less on newer machines) over USB2, why is the Mac over an order of magnitude slower?

    Read the article

  • Web filtering (Proxy or DNS) with option for users to ignore the block

    - by Jon Rhoades
    We are struggling with our users visiting infected or "attack" sites and Phising in general. Most of our machines are protected by an Enterprise anti virus and monitoring solution (McAffe ePO) and we try to get people to use Firefox... But no AV is perfect and we have to endure personal machines as well (albeit on their own 'Plague' VLANs) and would like to do something about Phishing as our users seem intent on disclosing their passwords to the world... To complicate matters we don't want to implement a block for many many reasons instead we would like to implement something akin to Firefox's "Reported Scam/Phish/Attack Site" - "Get me out of here" or crucially "Let me in anyway", giving the user a choice to still infect themselves if they feel like it (or look at a site incorrectly blacklisted). The reason we can't just use Firefox is we have a core enterprise App only certified on IE6&7 - thank you Oracle. Is it possible to implement this type of advisory filtering either using a proxy (in our case Squid) or DNS? http://serverfault.com/questions/15801/what-free-options-are-available-for-web-content-filtering http://serverfault.com/questions/47520/open-source-filtering-of-https-traffic Were a good start, but they don't address the advisory aspect of the filtering.

    Read the article

  • Sharepoint 2010 and Samba LDAP groups

    - by Jon Rhoades
    The setup: Windows 2008 SP2 Sharepoint 2010 Foundation Samba 3 "Domain" I'm trying to use the Samba LDAP users & groups we already have to access to Sharepoint. I can successfully authenticate using the Samaba accounts (getting the "Error: Access Denied" message as the user has no permissions). So Sharepoint can clearly see and use the existing accounts/groups. What I can't do is be authorised as in the grant permissions interface, Sharepoint now fails to match the account (I get an "No Exact match found..."). Is there a way of getting the Sharepoint permissions interface to recognise and use our existing Samba LDAP accounts? I get it - don't use Samaba, use AD. If I had that option I would, but I don't.

    Read the article

  • Blocking the Apple OS X App Store

    - by Jon Rhoades
    Being the evil corporate IT overlords we need to block the new OS X App Store. As you may be aware the 10.6.6 update installs the App Store App which allows users to download and install apps without admin privileges. Some Suggestions: Don't update to 10.6.6+ Use parental controls Presumably some OD policy (if you have an OD server which we don't) Block the App store by DNS or Proxy Not updating to 10.6.6+ isn't really a long term solution as it contains security fixes and new Macs will come with it anyway. Blocking the App store at a network level doesn't solve laptop users. Ideally a simple system preference or editing of a plist that can be pushed out by ARD would be the best solution. Please note the question isn't should we block the App store, it's how we can block the App store.

    Read the article

  • Samba 4 or Active Directory

    - by Jon Rhoades
    Now that Samba 4 has finally been released we find ourselves in new position of having a choice of of either upgrading our Samba 3 domain to either a Samba 4 domain on Linux or a Windows AD domain on Windows 2012. Given that we are equally expert at managing Windows and Linux servers, is there any reason not to use Samba 4 over AD on Windows; specifically: Are there functional differences from a Windows/OS X client perspective? Are there issues with other services that use AD, such as storage appliances that use AD/Kerberos for authentication/authorisation. Will the Microsoft "System Centre" suite of tools and other similar products work seamlessly? How will Samba 4 handle AD's Multimaster DC model and FMSO roles. Are there any other issues to be aware of, such as vendor support?

    Read the article

  • SimpleMembership, Membership Providers, Universal Providers and the new ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms and ASP.NET MVC 4 templates

    - by Jon Galloway
    The ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet template adds some new, very useful features which are built on top of SimpleMembership. These changes add some great features, like a much simpler and extensible membership API and support for OAuth. However, the new account management features require SimpleMembership and won't work against existing ASP.NET Membership Providers. I'll start with a summary of top things you need to know, then dig into a lot more detail. Summary: SimpleMembership has been designed as a replacement for traditional the previous ASP.NET Role and Membership provider system SimpleMembership solves common problems people ran into with the Membership provider system and was designed for modern user / membership / storage needs SimpleMembership integrates with the previous membership system, but you can't use a MembershipProvider with SimpleMembership The new ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet application template AccountController requires SimpleMembership and is not compatible with previous MembershipProviders You can continue to use existing ASP.NET Role and Membership providers in ASP.NET 4.5 and ASP.NET MVC 4 - just not with the ASP.NET MVC 4 AccountController The existing ASP.NET Role and Membership provider system remains supported as is part of the ASP.NET core ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms does not use SimpleMembership; it implements OAuth on top of ASP.NET Membership The ASP.NET Web Site Administration Tool (WSAT) is not compatible with SimpleMembership The following is the result of a few conversations with Erik Porter (PM for ASP.NET MVC) to make sure I had some the overall details straight, combined with a lot of time digging around in ILSpy and Visual Studio's assembly browsing tools. SimpleMembership: The future of membership for ASP.NET The ASP.NET Membership system was introduces with ASP.NET 2.0 back in 2005. It was designed to solve common site membership requirements at the time, which generally involved username / password based registration and profile storage in SQL Server. It was designed with a few extensibility mechanisms - notably a provider system (which allowed you override some specifics like backing storage) and the ability to store additional profile information (although the additional  profile information was packed into a single column which usually required access through the API). While it's sometimes frustrating to work with, it's held up for seven years - probably since it handles the main use case (username / password based membership in a SQL Server database) smoothly and can be adapted to most other needs (again, often frustrating, but it can work). The ASP.NET Web Pages and WebMatrix efforts allowed the team an opportunity to take a new look at a lot of things - e.g. the Razor syntax started with ASP.NET Web Pages, not ASP.NET MVC. The ASP.NET Web Pages team designed SimpleMembership to (wait for it) simplify the task of dealing with membership. As Matthew Osborn said in his post Using SimpleMembership With ASP.NET WebPages: With the introduction of ASP.NET WebPages and the WebMatrix stack our team has really be focusing on making things simpler for the developer. Based on a lot of customer feedback one of the areas that we wanted to improve was the built in security in ASP.NET. So with this release we took that time to create a new built in (and default for ASP.NET WebPages) security provider. I say provider because the new stuff is still built on the existing ASP.NET framework. So what do we call this new hotness that we have created? Well, none other than SimpleMembership. SimpleMembership is an umbrella term for both SimpleMembership and SimpleRoles. Part of simplifying membership involved fixing some common problems with ASP.NET Membership. Problems with ASP.NET Membership ASP.NET Membership was very obviously designed around a set of assumptions: Users and user information would most likely be stored in a full SQL Server database or in Active Directory User and profile information would be optimized around a set of common attributes (UserName, Password, IsApproved, CreationDate, Comment, Role membership...) and other user profile information would be accessed through a profile provider Some problems fall out of these assumptions. Requires Full SQL Server for default cases The default, and most fully featured providers ASP.NET Membership providers (SQL Membership Provider, SQL Role Provider, SQL Profile Provider) require full SQL Server. They depend on stored procedure support, and they rely on SQL Server cache dependencies, they depend on agents for clean up and maintenance. So the main SQL Server based providers don't work well on SQL Server CE, won't work out of the box on SQL Azure, etc. Note: Cory Fowler recently let me know about these Updated ASP.net scripts for use with Microsoft SQL Azure which do support membership, personalization, profile, and roles. But the fact that we need a support page with a set of separate SQL scripts underscores the underlying problem. Aha, you say! Jon's forgetting the Universal Providers, a.k.a. System.Web.Providers! Hold on a bit, we'll get to those... Custom Membership Providers have to work with a SQL-Server-centric API If you want to work with another database or other membership storage system, you need to to inherit from the provider base classes and override a bunch of methods which are tightly focused on storing a MembershipUser in a relational database. It can be done (and you can often find pretty good ones that have already been written), but it's a good amount of work and often leaves you with ugly code that has a bunch of System.NotImplementedException fun since there are a lot of methods that just don't apply. Designed around a specific view of users, roles and profiles The existing providers are focused on traditional membership - a user has a username and a password, some specific roles on the site (e.g. administrator, premium user), and may have some additional "nice to have" optional information that can be accessed via an API in your application. This doesn't fit well with some modern usage patterns: In OAuth and OpenID, the user doesn't have a password Often these kinds of scenarios map better to user claims or rights instead of monolithic user roles For many sites, profile or other non-traditional information is very important and needs to come from somewhere other than an API call that maps to a database blob What would work a lot better here is a system in which you were able to define your users, rights, and other attributes however you wanted and the membership system worked with your model - not the other way around. Requires specific schema, overflow in blob columns I've already mentioned this a few times, but it bears calling out separately - ASP.NET Membership focuses on SQL Server storage, and that storage is based on a very specific database schema. SimpleMembership as a better membership system As you might have guessed, SimpleMembership was designed to address the above problems. Works with your Schema As Matthew Osborn explains in his Using SimpleMembership With ASP.NET WebPages post, SimpleMembership is designed to integrate with your database schema: All SimpleMembership requires is that there are two columns on your users table so that we can hook up to it – an “ID” column and a “username” column. The important part here is that they can be named whatever you want. For instance username doesn't have to be an alias it could be an email column you just have to tell SimpleMembership to treat that as the “username” used to log in. Matthew's example shows using a very simple user table named Users (it could be named anything) with a UserID and Username column, then a bunch of other columns he wanted in his app. Then we point SimpleMemberhip at that table with a one-liner: WebSecurity.InitializeDatabaseFile("SecurityDemo.sdf", "Users", "UserID", "Username", true); No other tables are needed, the table can be named anything we want, and can have pretty much any schema we want as long as we've got an ID and something that we can map to a username. Broaden database support to the whole SQL Server family While SimpleMembership is not database agnostic, it works across the SQL Server family. It continues to support full SQL Server, but it also works with SQL Azure, SQL Server CE, SQL Server Express, and LocalDB. Everything's implemented as SQL calls rather than requiring stored procedures, views, agents, and change notifications. Note that SimpleMembership still requires some flavor of SQL Server - it won't work with MySQL, NoSQL databases, etc. You can take a look at the code in WebMatrix.WebData.dll using a tool like ILSpy if you'd like to see why - there places where SQL Server specific SQL statements are being executed, especially when creating and initializing tables. It seems like you might be able to work with another database if you created the tables separately, but I haven't tried it and it's not supported at this point. Note: I'm thinking it would be possible for SimpleMembership (or something compatible) to run Entity Framework so it would work with any database EF supports. That seems useful to me - thoughts? Note: SimpleMembership has the same database support - anything in the SQL Server family - that Universal Providers brings to the ASP.NET Membership system. Easy to with Entity Framework Code First The problem with with ASP.NET Membership's system for storing additional account information is that it's the gate keeper. That means you're stuck with its schema and accessing profile information through its API. SimpleMembership flips that around by allowing you to use any table as a user store. That means you're in control of the user profile information, and you can access it however you'd like - it's just data. Let's look at a practical based on the AccountModel.cs class in an ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet project. Here I'm adding a Birthday property to the UserProfile class. [Table("UserProfile")] public class UserProfile { [Key] [DatabaseGeneratedAttribute(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)] public int UserId { get; set; } public string UserName { get; set; } public DateTime Birthday { get; set; } } Now if I want to access that information, I can just grab the account by username and read the value. var context = new UsersContext(); var username = User.Identity.Name; var user = context.UserProfiles.SingleOrDefault(u => u.UserName == username); var birthday = user.Birthday; So instead of thinking of SimpleMembership as a big membership API, think of it as something that handles membership based on your user database. In SimpleMembership, everything's keyed off a user row in a table you define rather than a bunch of entries in membership tables that were out of your control. How SimpleMembership integrates with ASP.NET Membership Okay, enough sales pitch (and hopefully background) on why things have changed. How does this affect you? Let's start with a diagram to show the relationship (note: I've simplified by removing a few classes to show the important relationships): So SimpleMembershipProvider is an implementaiton of an ExtendedMembershipProvider, which inherits from MembershipProvider and adds some other account / OAuth related things. Here's what ExtendedMembershipProvider adds to MembershipProvider: The important thing to take away here is that a SimpleMembershipProvider is a MembershipProvider, but a MembershipProvider is not a SimpleMembershipProvider. This distinction is important in practice: you cannot use an existing MembershipProvider (including the Universal Providers found in System.Web.Providers) with an API that requires a SimpleMembershipProvider, including any of the calls in WebMatrix.WebData.WebSecurity or Microsoft.Web.WebPages.OAuth.OAuthWebSecurity. However, that's as far as it goes. Membership Providers still work if you're accessing them through the standard Membership API, and all of the core stuff  - including the AuthorizeAttribute, role enforcement, etc. - will work just fine and without any change. Let's look at how that affects you in terms of the new templates. Membership in the ASP.NET MVC 4 project templates ASP.NET MVC 4 offers six Project Templates: Empty - Really empty, just the assemblies, folder structure and a tiny bit of basic configuration. Basic - Like Empty, but with a bit of UI preconfigured (css / images / bundling). Internet - This has both a Home and Account controller and associated views. The Account Controller supports registration and login via either local accounts and via OAuth / OpenID providers. Intranet - Like the Internet template, but it's preconfigured for Windows Authentication. Mobile - This is preconfigured using jQuery Mobile and is intended for mobile-only sites. Web API - This is preconfigured for a service backend built on ASP.NET Web API. Out of these templates, only one (the Internet template) uses SimpleMembership. ASP.NET MVC 4 Basic template The Basic template has configuration in place to use ASP.NET Membership with the Universal Providers. You can see that configuration in the ASP.NET MVC 4 Basic template's web.config: <profile defaultProvider="DefaultProfileProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultProfileProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultProfileProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" applicationName="/" /> </providers> </profile> <membership defaultProvider="DefaultMembershipProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultMembershipProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultMembershipProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" enablePasswordRetrieval="false" enablePasswordReset="true" requiresQuestionAndAnswer="false" requiresUniqueEmail="false" maxInvalidPasswordAttempts="5" minRequiredPasswordLength="6" minRequiredNonalphanumericCharacters="0" passwordAttemptWindow="10" applicationName="/" /> </providers> </membership> <roleManager defaultProvider="DefaultRoleProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultRoleProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultRoleProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" applicationName="/" /> </providers> </roleManager> <sessionState mode="InProc" customProvider="DefaultSessionProvider"> <providers> <add name="DefaultSessionProvider" type="System.Web.Providers.DefaultSessionStateProvider, System.Web.Providers, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35" connectionStringName="DefaultConnection" /> </providers> </sessionState> This means that it's business as usual for the Basic template as far as ASP.NET Membership works. ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet template The Internet template has a few things set up to bootstrap SimpleMembership: \Models\AccountModels.cs defines a basic user account and includes data annotations to define keys and such \Filters\InitializeSimpleMembershipAttribute.cs creates the membership database using the above model, then calls WebSecurity.InitializeDatabaseConnection which verifies that the underlying tables are in place and marks initialization as complete (for the application's lifetime) \Controllers\AccountController.cs makes heavy use of OAuthWebSecurity (for OAuth account registration / login / management) and WebSecurity. WebSecurity provides account management services for ASP.NET MVC (and Web Pages) WebSecurity can work with any ExtendedMembershipProvider. There's one in the box (SimpleMembershipProvider) but you can write your own. Since a standard MembershipProvider is not an ExtendedMembershipProvider, WebSecurity will throw exceptions if the default membership provider is a MembershipProvider rather than an ExtendedMembershipProvider. Practical example: Create a new ASP.NET MVC 4 application using the Internet application template Install the Microsoft ASP.NET Universal Providers for LocalDB NuGet package Run the application, click on Register, add a username and password, and click submit You'll get the following execption in AccountController.cs::Register: To call this method, the "Membership.Provider" property must be an instance of "ExtendedMembershipProvider". This occurs because the ASP.NET Universal Providers packages include a web.config transform that will update your web.config to add the Universal Provider configuration I showed in the Basic template example above. When WebSecurity tries to use the configured ASP.NET Membership Provider, it checks if it can be cast to an ExtendedMembershipProvider before doing anything else. So, what do you do? Options: If you want to use the new AccountController, you'll either need to use the SimpleMembershipProvider or another valid ExtendedMembershipProvider. This is pretty straightforward. If you want to use an existing ASP.NET Membership Provider in ASP.NET MVC 4, you can't use the new AccountController. You can do a few things: Replace  the AccountController.cs and AccountModels.cs in an ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet project with one from an ASP.NET MVC 3 application (you of course won't have OAuth support). Then, if you want, you can go through and remove other things that were built around SimpleMembership - the OAuth partial view, the NuGet packages (e.g. the DotNetOpenAuthAuth package, etc.) Use an ASP.NET MVC 4 Internet application template and add in a Universal Providers NuGet package. Then copy in the AccountController and AccountModel classes. Create an ASP.NET MVC 3 project and upgrade it to ASP.NET MVC 4 using the steps shown in the ASP.NET MVC 4 release notes. None of these are particularly elegant or simple. Maybe we (or just me?) can do something to make this simpler - perhaps a NuGet package. However, this should be an edge case - hopefully the cases where you'd need to create a new ASP.NET but use legacy ASP.NET Membership Providers should be pretty rare. Please let me (or, preferably the team) know if that's an incorrect assumption. Membership in the ASP.NET 4.5 project template ASP.NET 4.5 Web Forms took a different approach which builds off ASP.NET Membership. Instead of using the WebMatrix security assemblies, Web Forms uses Microsoft.AspNet.Membership.OpenAuth assembly. I'm no expert on this, but from a bit of time in ILSpy and Visual Studio's (very pretty) dependency graphs, this uses a Membership Adapter to save OAuth data into an EF managed database while still running on top of ASP.NET Membership. Note: There may be a way to use this in ASP.NET MVC 4, although it would probably take some plumbing work to hook it up. How does this fit in with Universal Providers (System.Web.Providers)? Just to summarize: Universal Providers are intended for cases where you have an existing ASP.NET Membership Provider and you want to use it with another SQL Server database backend (other than SQL Server). It doesn't require agents to handle expired session cleanup and other background tasks, it piggybacks these tasks on other calls. Universal Providers are not really, strictly speaking, universal - at least to my way of thinking. They only work with databases in the SQL Server family. Universal Providers do not work with Simple Membership. The Universal Providers packages include some web config transforms which you would normally want when you're using them. What about the Web Site Administration Tool? Visual Studio includes tooling to launch the Web Site Administration Tool (WSAT) to configure users and roles in your application. WSAT is built to work with ASP.NET Membership, and is not compatible with Simple Membership. There are two main options there: Use the WebSecurity and OAuthWebSecurity API to manage the users and roles Create a web admin using the above APIs Since SimpleMembership runs on top of your database, you can update your users as you would any other data - via EF or even in direct database edits (in development, of course)

    Read the article

  • Hyper-V Guests Dying

    - by Jon Rauschenberger
    I just hit my THIRD instance of a Hyper-V guest machine dying with the exact same behavior. In all three instances we are hosting WS2008 guests on a WS2008 host. AFter a config change, we reboot the guest and the guest OS comes up but in a very cripled state. Specifically, we are able to log into the guest, but can't launch any apps and the guest never comes active on the network. I opened a support ticket with MS the second time this happened and they focused in on the DCOM subsystem not coming up...best explanation they could provide was that permissions on key system files got corrupted. I eventually gave up on the ticket after close to 10 hours on the phone trying different things that were going no where. What really concerns me is that we have now seen the exact same thing happen to a guest hosted on a completly differet host machine. There is zero hardware overlap between the two. Has anyone seen this before?? It's really odd behavior, but it also seems like there's a pattern here that's concerning me. Thanks, jon

    Read the article

  • Weird permission issue with POSIX ACLs, NFS v3 on Linux

    - by jon
    I have two Linux systems, both running Debian Squeeze. Versions of (I think) the stuff involved are: kernel: 2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 ii nfs-kernel-server 1:1.2.2-4squeeze2 support for NFS kernel server ii libnfsidmap2 0.23-2 An nfs idmapping library ii nfs-common 1:1.2.2-4squeeze2 NFS support files common to client and server ii portmap 6.0.0-2 RPC port mapper (The client doesn't have nfs-kernel-server involved.) I have a directory with ACLs: # file: dirname # owner: jon # group: foogroup # flags: -s- user::rwx user:www-data:rwx group::r-x group:foogroup:rwx mask::rwx other::r-x default:... There are two users, neither one of which owns the directory: uid=3001(jake) gid=3001(jake) groups=3001(jake),104(wheel),3999(foogroup) uid=3005(nic) gid=3005(nic) groups=3005(nic),3999(foogroup) The jake user can create files in the directory without issues. The nic user can't. All UIDs/GIDs are the same on the client and server. I've verified (packet sniffing) that the right uids/gids get sent via AUTH_UNIX are correct-- uid=gid=3005, auxiliary gids=3005,3999-- and that the server replies with NFS3ERR_ACCESS, which the kernel on the client maps to EACCES (Permission denied). Can anyone help me here?

    Read the article

  • filter / directing URLs coming onto a network

    - by Jon
    Hi all, I an not sure if this is possible or not but what i would like to do is as follows: I have one IP address (dynamic using zoneedit.com to keep it upto date). I have one webserver running my main site which is an Ubuntu machine running Apache. I also have a windows 2008 server running another site. Just to confuse things I also run part of my Apache site on the windows server, currently using proxypassreverse to get the information from it. So it looks something like this: IP 1.2.3.4 maps to mydomain.com as well as myotherdomain.com All requests that come into port 80 are forwarded to the Apache box and I use Virtualhost settings to proxy the windows sites where needed. so mydomain.com is an Apache site mydomain.com/mywindowssection is the Apache server using proxypassreverse to get part of the site from the Windows server myotherdomain.com uses Apache and proxypassreverse to get the whole site. What I would like to be able to do is forward all http requests that come into my network to one machine that figures out who should be serving that content. so: mydomain.com would go to the Apache machine myotherdomain.com would go the windows machine. I am just in the process of setting up an Astaro gateway (never done this before so taking a while to configure) as my firewall, dns, dhcp etc, don't know if this can handle it. I have the capacity to run a VM on the network if a seperate box would be needed for this process as well. Thanks for any and all feedback. Jon

    Read the article

  • Silverlight Cream for November 26, 2011 -- #1175

    - by Dave Campbell
    In this Issue: Michael Washington, Manas Patnaik, Jeff Blankenburg, Doug Mair, Jon Galloway, Richard Bartholomew, Peter Bromberg, Joel Reyes, Zeben Chen, Navneet Gupta, and Cathy Sullivan. Above the Fold: Silverlight: "Using ASP.NET PageMethods With Silverlight" Peter Bromberg WP7: "Leveraging Background Services and Agents in Windows Phone 7 (Mango)" Jon Galloway Metro/WinRT/Windows8: "Debugging Contracts using Windows Simulator" Cathy Sullivan LightSwitch: "LightSwitch: It Is About The Money (It Is Always About The Money)" Michael Washington Shoutouts: Michael Palermo's latest Desert Mountain Developers is up Michael Washington's latest Visual Studio #LightSwitch Daily is up From SilverlightCream.com:LightSwitch: It Is About The Money (It Is Always About The Money)Michael Washington has a very nice post up about LightSwitch apps in general and his opinion about the future use... based on what he and I have been up to, I tend to agree on all counts!Accessing Controls from DataGrid ColumnHeader – SilverlightManas Patnaik's latest post is about using the VisualTreeHelper class to iterate through the visual tree to find the controls you need ... including sample code31 Days of Mango | Day #18: Using Sample DataJeff Blankenburg's Day 18 in his 31-Day Mango quest is on Sample Data using Expression Blend, and he begins with great links to his other Blend posts followed by a nice sample data tutorial and source31 Days of Mango | Day #19: Tilt EffectsDoug Mair returns to the reigns of Jeff's 31-Days series with number 19 which is all about Tilt Effects ... as seen in the Phone application when you select a user... Doug shows how to add this effect to your appLeveraging Background Services and Agents in Windows Phone 7 (Mango)Jon Galloway has a WP7 post up discussing Background Services and how they all fit together... he's got a great diagram of that as an overview then really nice discussion of each followed up by his slides from DevConnections, and codeNetflix on Windows 8This one isn't C#/XAML, but Richard Bartholomew has a Netflix on Windows 8 app running that bears noticeUsing ASP.NET PageMethods With SilverlightPeter Bromberg has a post up demonstrating calling PageMethods from a Silverlight app using the ScriptManager controlAWESOME Windows Phone Power ToolJoel Reyes announced the release of a full-featured tool for side-loading apps to your WP7 device... available at codeplexMicrosoft Windows Simulator Rotation and Resolution EmulationZeben Chen discusses the Windows 8 Simulator a bit deeper with this code-laden post showing how to look at roation and orientation-aware apps and resolution.First look at Windows SimulatorNavneet Gupta has a great into post to using the simulator in VS2011 for Windows 8 apps. Four things you really need this for: Touch Emulation, Rotation, Different target resolutions, and ContractsDebugging Contracts using Windows SimulatorCathy Sullivan shows how to debug W8 Contracts in VS2011... why you ask? because when you hit one in the debugger, the target app disappears.. but enter the simulator... check it outStay in the 'Light!Twitter SilverlightNews | Twitter WynApse | WynApse.com | Tagged Posts | SilverlightCreamJoin me @ SilverlightCream | Phoenix Silverlight User GroupTechnorati Tags:Silverlight    Silverlight 3    Silverlight 4    Windows PhoneMIX10

    Read the article

  • Proper fstab entry to mount a samba share in 12.04

    - by JPbuntu
    I am a little confused on the proper fstab entry for a samba share in Ubuntu 12.04 I can get the drive to mount manually by using: sudo mount -t cifs //192.168.2.2/raid_drive /mnt/homeserver -o username=jon,password=password So I tried putting this in fstab: //192.168.2.2/raid_drive /mnt/homeserver cifs username=jon,password=password,iocharset=utf8,mode=0777,dir_mode=07??77 0 0 Which gives me this error in syslog: kernel: [ 2217.925354] CIFS: Unknown mount option mode kernel: [ 2217.936345] CIFS VFS: default security mechanism requested. The default security mechanism will be upgraded from ntlm to ntlmv2 in kernel release 3.3 This guide says to use smbfs although I believe smbfs is deprecated? What is a common fstab configuration for a samba share in Ubuntu 12.04? EDIT: Using the accepted answer below I was initially getting this error message (from dmesg): [ 45.520883] CIFS VFS: Error connecting to socket. Aborting operation [ 45.520990] CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -115 although it turns out this was due to network connectivity issues, and not related to improper fstab entry.

    Read the article

  • C#4: Why does this static field always get initialized over-eagerly?

    - by TheSilverBullet
    I am looking at this excellent article from Jon Skeet at this location: http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/General/Beforefieldinit.aspx While executing the demo code, Jon Skeet says that we can expect three different kinds of behaviours. To quote that article: The runtime could decide to run the type initializer on loading the assembly to start with... Or perhaps it will run it when the static method is first run... Or even wait until the field is first accessed... When I try this out (on framework 4), I always get the first result. That is, the static method is initialized before the assembly is loaded. I have tried running this multiple times and get the same result. (I tried both the debug and release versions) Why is this so? Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Why does this static field always get initialized over-eagerly?

    - by TheSilverBullet
    I am looking at this excellent article from Jon Skeet. While executing the demo code, Jon Skeet says that we can expect three different kinds of behaviours. To quote that article: The runtime could decide to run the type initializer on loading the assembly to start with... Or perhaps it will run it when the static method is first run... Or even wait until the field is first accessed... When I try this out (on framework 4), I always get the first result. That is, the static method is initialized before the assembly is loaded. I have tried running this multiple times and get the same result. (I tried both the debug and release versions) Why is this so? Am I missing something?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >