@Obsolesce said in Microsoft wants to buy Mellanox – Speculations or reality?: @Reid-Cooper said in Microsoft wants to buy Mellanox – Speculations or reality?: This seems like a really odd pairing. Why would Microsoft want to alienate hardware vendors by getting into the high end switching game? Probably for their Azure stuff. Then they should just purchase the equipment, not the company. .

Troy Hunt uses it for the "I Have been PWned" https://www.troyhunt.com/serverless-to-the-max-doing-big-things-for-small-dollars-with-cloudflare-workers-and-azure-functions/

@dbeato said in Using Windows 10 Public ISO with VLSC MAK: Sot it just activated it right? Yup.

@RojoLoco said in Installing Windows 10 without a Microcoft account: @IRJ said in Installing Windows 10 without a Microcoft account: So does anyone know how to connect on online account to your windows 10 installation? Yes. You will need the blood of a Lithuanian virgin, a grashopper's eyelash, and 10 grams of unobtanium. I'm assuming your Faustian deal with MS is already signed and valid, yes? A man creating a Microsoft account and agreeing to terms in conditions during a Windows 10 install. 2018 Partially Colorized

The engine may end up being an "Enterprise Mode" like IE I think? Edge as a browser works well but with a few show stoppers that killed any further usage for us: 1: Downloads mysteriously won't start or just plain stop for no reason. 2: Edge ate my favourites way too many times. The containerized Edge, Application Guard I think(?), is a great idea. If Edge was as good as they had hoped it would provide a fantastic sandbox experience to protect users from drive-by attacks and bad GET commands from e-mail clients. At least we are not getting stuck with the legacy ActiveX that keeps rearing its head every once in a while because of IE.

@Dashrender said in Why, in 2018, is Microsoft adding security questions to Windows 10?: @JaredBusch said in Why, in 2018, is Microsoft adding security questions to Windows 10?: @Dashrender said in Why, in 2018, is Microsoft adding security questions to Windows 10?: @scottalanmiller said in Why, in 2018, is Microsoft adding security questions to Windows 10?: @Dashrender said in Why, in 2018, is Microsoft adding security questions to Windows 10?: @JaredBusch said in Why, in 2018, is Microsoft adding security questions to Windows 10?: @scottalanmiller said in Why, in 2018, is Microsoft adding security questions to Windows 10?: @JaredBusch said in Why, in 2018, is Microsoft adding security questions to Windows 10?: @scottalanmiller said in Why, in 2018, is Microsoft adding security questions to Windows 10?: @Obsolesce said in Why, in 2018, is Microsoft adding security questions to Windows 10?: This only occurs, that I've seen, during OOBE when you set up the PC as a local, non-domain, non-Microsoft-Account, user. Correct, as a standard local account. The "normal" way. Most people don't use AD, even in business this is dropping off quickly. And lots of people don't want to deal with those ridiculous MS accounts that they try to ram down everyone's throats. And who knows how secure those are, anyway. That is not the normal way to set up windows anymore and has not been for quite a while. The normal way to set up windows is with a Microsoft account. In fact you have to click no to setting up a Microsoft account multiple times in order to set up a PC without a Microsoft account That's what they promote, but I wonder how many people are actually doing that. Probably most that don’t use AD. Of course some will not, but not many. I tend to agree - most home users will use a MS account simply because it's what's presented. IT folks and some programmers might not, but I'm willing to bet it's way over half that do. Have you seen a lot of home users doing this? I have not, of course my cross section is tiny. But of the ones I see that have zero tech skills, they all skip it because it is scary and confusing. The option to skip it's obvious enough for most people I run into - they just do it, even if that means setting up a new account. It is obvious? not really. And even if they see it and click on it, you have to refuse once or twice more. Whoops - I meant - NOT super obvious... normal users will be guilted into using an MS account in most cases. yeah the first two times it took me a moment to notice you could skip.

@Donahue said in Where do I start with replacing the whole MS AD stack: sing reservations. I think your knowledge of FG is not allowing you to do this, just create a new interface with the desired subnet and leave or tick DHCP option. And they you can do it what you want with it. Create an IPv4 policy to give access to internet to the new interface.

Thanks all

Just had our first person report issues this evening.

@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft to Launch Linux Version of Sysinternals: @StuartJordan said in Microsoft to Launch Linux Version of Sysinternals: ...it would still probably be less than windows though because you need to elevate privileges on Linux and we all know most people run with admin privileges on windows. That's not related to Linux vs. NTKernel (the Windows Kernel.) They are essentially identical there. You are seeing "common approaches from the userbase" and perceiving that behaviour as being caused by the kernel code, but it is not. Run Windows uses on a Linux-based OS and they will behave the same as they always did. Put Linux-based OS users on Windows and they are secure. It's the userbase, not the product, that has that effect. Windows is just as much "need elevated privileges to run" as any highly secure Linux distro, but Windows end users are way more likely to work around that, and be accepting of third party products that demand it. Port the Windows desktop to Linux, literally nothing will change, because those users will come along with it. I suppose I was meaning the userbase more then the actual kernel in that statement.

@dbeato said in Windows Site Migration Tool: Migrate your IIS websites at a fast clip: The new thing with Microsoft Azure is SiteCore, that is the new trend and people are already on that. Not sure but we might want to discuss that on ML one of this days. @scottalanmiller Overreaching of user information https://www.sitecore.com/products/sitecore-experience-platform

@travisdh1 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?: @coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?: @travisdh1 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?: @coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?: @travisdh1 said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?: @coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?: @Dashrender said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?: @coliver said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?: @SanWIN said in Underwater Servers in Your Future?: @Dashrender Direct water cooling looks like more effective, taking into account that you have to burn (generate heat) something to produce an electricity to cool the hardware with the traditional air conditioning. But I do agree that it still could affect the nature. Especially if you can couple this with offshore wind, solar, wave, or current generation systems. This might be crazy thinking - But I wonder how much we are affecting our physical world by tapping energy directly out of it - i.e. taking heat energy from the planet, pulling energy from wind, from wave, etc. In writing that - I'm wondering if there might just be less thermal bleedoff? I know the planet gets a ton of energy from the sun, I'm pretty sure it's what powers most of our weather, so maybe it's a non issue? It's mostly a non-issue. We're affecting it more with CO2 and other gases then we are through wind, solar, and geothermal. CO2 is not the boogieman it's made out to be. There are lots of other reasons to prefer moving things to have less impact on the environment. I think it's that most people aren't capable of understanding those other reasons that a boogieman like CO2 is used, most people think they understand less=good more=bad. There are whole bodies of research on why excessive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are bad for the environment and people living in those environments. It's not a new thing and knowledge of it has been around for decades... The key word is excessive. Take a look at the historic CO2 values to get the idea. Huh? Even past concentration didn't really hit the point where we are today. IIRC the highest (and climatically volatile period) was only ever ~300PPM CO2 at least from the measurements of ice cores. We're well into the 400PPM CO2... So I'm not sure what you mean by look historically. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/ HAHAHAHAAAHAH In New Zealand, he was the first Director of Building Research and later, Chief Chemist of the Coal Research Association. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray

@black3dynamite said in Microsoft Office New ODT Customization Tool: So they retire it but provides us with a preview? Yeah it is counter productive in my opinion.

@oksana 60 MB install you say. Any .net framework past 4.5 is hidden 80 MB install worth of 2 GB of bloat

They aren't in the ML community but special shoutout to Ariel Sanchez and Joe Houghes for this help. Somebody needs to get them into ML. https://twitter.com/TheRealNerdyDad/status/1049365117140447238

M.B.A. Applications Decline at Harvard, Wharton, Other Elite Schools as Degree Loses Luster

@scottalanmiller said in Need some help with SQL Server 2016 Standard licensing (price confusion): @jaredbusch said in Need some help with SQL Server 2016 Standard licensing (price confusion): @dave247 said in Need some help with SQL Server 2016 Standard licensing (price confusion): @jaredbusch said in Need some help with SQL Server 2016 Standard licensing (price confusion): @dave247 said in Need some help with SQL Server 2016 Standard licensing (price confusion): @jaredbusch said in Need some help with SQL Server 2016 Standard licensing (price confusion): @dave247 said in Need some help with SQL Server 2016 Standard licensing (price confusion): @phlipelder said in Need some help with SQL Server 2016 Standard licensing (price confusion): @dave247 said in Need some help with SQL Server 2016 Standard licensing (price confusion): Hi friends. I am working on building a new physical server to replace one which is running older versions of Windows and SQL server, plus it is almost out of storage space so this needs to be done sooner than later. This SQL server is running a 3rd party application and they currently only support up to SQL 2016, so that's what I have to install - not 2017. And it's going to be SQL 2016 Standard Edition running on Windows 2016 Server Standard with 16 cores. I spent a while researching SQL sever licensing to try and get an idea of how much it's going to cost. I haven't dealt with SQL server licensing yet. First, I assumed that I would still have to purchase SQL Server 2017 core licenses with downgrade rights. So looking on the SQL Sever Pricing page, it looks as though Standard - per core price is $3,717 (2 pack). So if my server has a total of 16 cores, this is going to cost about $29,736 to cover SQL licensing. Then I checked over on CDW just to get an idea of prices and things and I had the idea to search "SQL 2016" when I found this: SQL Server 2016 Standard - license - 16 cores - with Server 2016 Standard for like $1,900. Is this even applicable to what I'm doing or am I missing something? It does say in the technical details "BIOS locked (Lenovo)" but I have no idea what that refers to. But other than that, it looks like it's licensing SQL Server 2016 for 16 cores and bundled with Windows Server 2016. Surly this can't be correct... or is it? If it is actually what I would need to be covered, I would purchase it, of course. Otherwise, can someone help me get an idea of what I should be paying for SQL Server 2016 Standard Edition for 16 cores if not the cost I initially calculated ($29,736)? And I don't think we'd do the server + cal licensing as we have about 80 users and 100 or more systems which would connect to the SQL server. Simple rule of thumb to ask your Microsoft licensing rep for the following: First option is license + CALs that allows internal access only with unlimited instances on the server and unlimited cores: SQL Server Standard License SQL Server Standard User CALs (80 Users) Second option is per core with a minimum of 4 to purchase: SQL Server Standard Per Core 2-Pack (2x) In the Per Core scenario we can license for the number of physical cores to use and delimit that in SQL Studio Management. When it comes to audit, a snip of that setting that only allows the four threads should be just fine. So if you license + CAL, do you have to cover all users AND computers? If you license by user you cover users. If you license by device you cover devices. Well what constitutes as a device? I mean, users use a device to connect to the SQL server... so wouldn't I have to cover both? I don't get it. That is never how Microsoft CALs have worked. ok, I finally re-read the overview.. makes sense again. We have a pretty even user/device ratio with slight fluctuations in both over time. I suppose we'd just do user CALs.. There is almost no reason for anyone in the normal, day to day, business world to use device CALs. Agreed, this is super specific niche stuff normally reserved for manufacturing shift work. We have a few clients that run two or three shifts across one or more facilities. A shared device by two or three peeps per day is about the only time we've ever deployed Device CALs.

@dbeato said in Azure Ethereum Network: @irj said in Azure Ethereum Network: You can now build your own Ethereum Network in Azure. I am sure we will start seeing blockchain integrated into Office 365 in the future. Definitely Interesting! https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-stack/azure-stack-ethereum Interesting for sure. I am pretty damn excited! I got into both Microsft Blockchain workshops at Microsoft Ignite! I am going to get a hands on look at this!!!!

@dustinb3403 said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing: @jaredbusch said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing: @scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing: @jaredbusch said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing: @scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing: @jaredbusch one of the complications is that there IS no virtual core. vCPU is NOT core. a vCPU has vCores. Always. It might just be one. That is how it works. Not in any system I've seen. What people call vCores are actually vCPUs. The vCPU might tell the OS it has multiple cores, but the idea of a vCore has never existed, only vCPUs. Vmware, KVM, etc. all the same. Core means physical, it's like having a physical virtual, it cancels itself out. I am almost certain that VMWare lets you make a 1 CPU VM with 2 cores. Hyper-V just says virtual processors. KVM says CPUs. But I very clearly remember some hypervisor letting me specify a vCPU and vCores. XenServer and XCP-ng also allow this. 1cpu 2 core etc. Topology lets you state presented cores, not vCores. Totally different things.

@brrabill said in Nextcloud replacing OneDrive: @scottalanmiller said in Nextcloud replacing OneDrive: @brrabill said in Nextcloud replacing OneDrive: Hmmm, sounds like one of those "MS messed up" scenarios we were discussing in the backup thread(s). Yes, but it's also a "it didn't lose them their data" because they had local copies, scenarios we were also discussing. So a good example of both. Actually it sounded like MS found them and put them back. Local copies would also have been removed if they were "deleted" at the MS side. Good point. The real problem here is the "customer shaming" that MS always does. Anytime MS is at fault, they try to shame the customer. Whether it is through official channels or "look the other way" as their engineers go into communities and do it. MS employees are out there attacking any customer that dares to mention that they've had a problem. Like in this thread. Even once MS had admitted the mistake, and fixed it, an MS employee was still on the offensive trying to shame the customer and went ballistic once it was obvious he didn't even know how MS products worked.

@phlipelder said in Is Spamhaus the DDoS Arm of Microsoft: @scottalanmiller BTDT Back in the day the general sentiment was that RBL "services" were no more than extortion rackets. IMNSHO, that has not changed much. With the advent of SPF, DMARC, and DKIM their relevance will become a lot smaller which is a happy. SPF has been around forever, but a lot of mail domains still do not have it setup. DMARC has barely any traction by comparison. DKIM is not even a thing that does anything. DKIM only tells the receiving server what to do with a message that fails SPF or DMARC, instead of the receiving server deciding for itself.

@nerdydad said in 3 steps to maintain the 3-2-1 backup rule: @scottalanmiller said in 3 steps to maintain the 3-2-1 backup rule: @nerdydad said in 3 steps to maintain the 3-2-1 backup rule: @oksana Is there a way of pointing Starwind VTL to a private cloud provider instead of Microsoft blob, Azure AWS, or Backblaze? It's not that easy. What API is that private provider using? ¯＼(ツ)/¯ Then how would they point to it? It's like asking "can I use a thing"? I don't know, depends what that thing is.