@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft VDA?:

@pete-s said in Microsoft VDA?:

@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft VDA?:

From what I can tell, both scenarios are the same.... Windows without SA. So each device (accessing FROM) requires a VDA at $100/year.

Okay, that makes sense. But what about the linux host? Is that covered by the VDA license as well?

The Linux host doesn't access the VM, so it does not need an access license unless you plan to use the VM locally in addition to using it remotely.

No, no local access on the host.

I was thinking about licensing for the Windows 10 VM itself. Not the remote access to it. Is that included in the VDA license?

Or put another way - do I use the Windows VDA license to install / activate the Windows 10 VM?

@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft VDA?:

From what I can tell, both scenarios are the same.... Windows without SA. So each device (accessing FROM) requires a VDA at $100/year.

Okay, that makes sense. But what about the linux host? Is that covered by the VDA license as well?

I've read and re-read Microsoft licensing terms but I simply can't figure out what I need.

This is what I'm trying to figure out:

Scenario 1

• I want to install a Windows 10 Pro VM on a linux host.
• One user will access the VM from their raspberry pi using RDP.

What MS licenses do I need to get? Cost?

Scenario 2

• I want to install a Windows 10 VM on a linux host.
• One user will access the VM from their Windows 10 Pro OEM PC using rdp.

What MS licenses do I need to get? Cost?

@scottalanmiller said in Container core technology?:

@pete-s said in Container core technology?:

@scottalanmiller said in Container core technology?:

@pete-s said in Container core technology?:

@scottalanmiller said in Container core technology?:

@pete-s said in Container core technology?:

So whatever container solution you run, the core technology is the same.

It varies a lot. Docker is a super lean container tech, meant to run a process and its tightly coupled processes. But LXC includes the entire operating system sans kernel. So if you are using LXC containers, you can run Ubuntu on Fedora, Fedora on CentOS, CentOS on Ubuntu, Alpine on Ubuntu, CentOS on CentOS... the sky is the limit as long as they are okay sharing the same kernel compilation settings and version.

OK, but it's still just isolated processes in the kernel, right? So from the kernel's perspective it's all the same.

Correct, the kernel really can't tell.

If we look at security, doesn't that mean that it's the same as well?

I mean it's the kernel that is responsible for the isolation of the groups of processes.

If your concern is the stability of the system, yes it is the same. If your concern is the isolation between processes, containers basically crank the kernel security all the way up. Technically anything a container can do you can do with just the OS. Containerizing is basically the ultimate in kernel level isolation settings. So technically, security is the same. In practice, it's a lot of security no one ever tries to enable otherwise.

Thanks! I just wanted to make sure my high-level understanding of the underlying technology was right.

Since it's abstracted away, it's not the first thing mentioned when you look at different container management solutions.

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

So when people say things like "works on Chrome" or "works on Safari"... that's actually a reference to the rendering engine and not the browser. So the entire world of browser compatibility uses the term browser and those names for the under the hood engines. Chrome on iOS has all the technical limitations of Safari.

OK, it's hard for me to judge what everyone is saying. I'm probably wrong.

I mean people say they have 100 mbps internet. Drives me crazy because you'd thought than anyone technical would know the difference between milli and Mega, but obviously not. Bits and bytes always seems to cause similar confusion.

@scottalanmiller said in Container core technology?:

@pete-s said in Container core technology?:

@scottalanmiller said in Container core technology?:

@pete-s said in Container core technology?:

So whatever container solution you run, the core technology is the same.

It varies a lot. Docker is a super lean container tech, meant to run a process and its tightly coupled processes. But LXC includes the entire operating system sans kernel. So if you are using LXC containers, you can run Ubuntu on Fedora, Fedora on CentOS, CentOS on Ubuntu, Alpine on Ubuntu, CentOS on CentOS... the sky is the limit as long as they are okay sharing the same kernel compilation settings and version.

OK, but it's still just isolated processes in the kernel, right? So from the kernel's perspective it's all the same.

Correct, the kernel really can't tell.

If we look at security, doesn't that mean that it's the same as well?

I mean it's the kernel that is responsible for the isolation of the groups of processes.

@scottalanmiller said in Container core technology?:

@pete-s said in Container core technology?:

So whatever container solution you run, the core technology is the same.

It varies a lot. Docker is a super lean container tech, meant to run a process and its tightly coupled processes. But LXC includes the entire operating system sans kernel. So if you are using LXC containers, you can run Ubuntu on Fedora, Fedora on CentOS, CentOS on Ubuntu, Alpine on Ubuntu, CentOS on CentOS... the sky is the limit as long as they are okay sharing the same kernel compilation settings and version.

OK, but it's still just isolated processes in the kernel, right? So from the kernel's perspective it's all the same.

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

It's odd, there's no info on it anywhere. Even their own website and wikipedia tell nothing of it. It's all about their search engine.

Last I knew, you can't actually replace Safari on iOS, only modify it.

https://github.com/duckduckgo/iOS

Looks like a real app.

That is assumed already in the "it's just Safari" statement. It's always a real app regardless of if it is Safari or not.

Well, "app" is user lingo.
There is a difference if it's an extension to a browser or a fork of another browser or just a shortcut.

A fork will look 100% like it's unrelated to the original, though. There's no way to tell without looking at the code. Google Chrome is another good example. It's called Chrome, it looks like Chrome, it's always been Safari (Webkit) on iOS and not actual Chrome like on all other platforms.

If you're talking about the rendering engine (webkit), say webkit or Safari engine if you must. It's confusing AF when you say Safari when you're not talking about Safari.

Webkit is essentially always called Safari. When people say Safari, it's Webkit that they almost always refer to. "Safari" is just the menu options and name on the app, essentially. None of what matters or makes it a browser is Safari.

It's like saying Linux and Ubuntu. It's Webkit and Safari. It's the Safari kernel that you have to use, but you can change the name, colours, menu placement, etc. The superficial stuff.

No, it's not. And especially in this case. People pick Firefox, not for it's browser engine but for it's features. Same with Brave and other privacy focused browser.

Caveat here is that we are talking about people who knows technology and knows what a rendering engine is in the first place. Normal users don't of course.

But we could assume that DDG on iOS uses webkit (safari engine) and guess that DDG on Android uses blink (chromium engine).

On Windows, macOS, Linux it's seems like there is a firefox/chrome extension but no browser.

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

It's odd, there's no info on it anywhere. Even their own website and wikipedia tell nothing of it. It's all about their search engine.

Last I knew, you can't actually replace Safari on iOS, only modify it.

https://github.com/duckduckgo/iOS

Looks like a real app.

That is assumed already in the "it's just Safari" statement. It's always a real app regardless of if it is Safari or not.

Well, "app" is user lingo.
There is a difference if it's an extension to a browser or a fork of another browser or just a shortcut.

A fork will look 100% like it's unrelated to the original, though. There's no way to tell without looking at the code. Google Chrome is another good example. It's called Chrome, it looks like Chrome, it's always been Safari (Webkit) on iOS and not actual Chrome like on all other platforms.

If you're talking about the rendering engine (webkit), say webkit or Safari engine if you must. It's confusing AF when you say Safari when you're not talking about Safari.

Webkit is essentially always called Safari. When people say Safari, it's Webkit that they almost always refer to. "Safari" is just the menu options and name on the app, essentially. None of what matters or makes it a browser is Safari.

It's like saying Linux and Ubuntu. It's Webkit and Safari. It's the Safari kernel that you have to use, but you can change the name, colours, menu placement, etc. The superficial stuff.

No, it's not. And especially in this case. People pick Firefox, not for it's browser engine but for it's features. Same with Brave and other privacy focused browser.

Caveat here is that we are talking about people who knows technology and knows what a rendering engine is in the first place. Normal users don't of course.

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

It's odd, there's no info on it anywhere. Even their own website and wikipedia tell nothing of it. It's all about their search engine.

Last I knew, you can't actually replace Safari on iOS, only modify it.

https://github.com/duckduckgo/iOS

Looks like a real app.

That is assumed already in the "it's just Safari" statement. It's always a real app regardless of if it is Safari or not.

Well, "app" is user lingo.
There is a difference if it's an extension to a browser or a fork of another browser or just a shortcut.

A fork will look 100% like it's unrelated to the original, though. There's no way to tell without looking at the code. Google Chrome is another good example. It's called Chrome, it looks like Chrome, it's always been Safari (Webkit) on iOS and not actual Chrome like on all other platforms.

If you're talking about the rendering engine (webkit), say webkit or Safari engine if you must. It's confusing AF when you say Safari when you're not talking about Safari.

Webkit is essentially always called Safari. When people say Safari, it's Webkit that they almost always refer to. "Safari" is just the menu options and name on the app, essentially. None of what matters or makes it a browser is Safari.

It's like saying Linux and Ubuntu. It's Webkit and Safari. It's the Safari kernel that you have to use, but you can change the name, colours, menu placement, etc. The superficial stuff.

No, it's not. And especially in this case. People pick Firefox, not for it's browser engine but for it's features. Same with Brave and other privacy focused browser.

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

It's odd, there's no info on it anywhere. Even their own website and wikipedia tell nothing of it. It's all about their search engine.

Last I knew, you can't actually replace Safari on iOS, only modify it.

https://github.com/duckduckgo/iOS

Looks like a real app.

That is assumed already in the "it's just Safari" statement. It's always a real app regardless of if it is Safari or not.

Well, "app" is user lingo.
There is a difference if it's an extension to a browser or a fork of another browser or just a shortcut.

A fork will look 100% like it's unrelated to the original, though. There's no way to tell without looking at the code. Google Chrome is another good example. It's called Chrome, it looks like Chrome, it's always been Safari (Webkit) on iOS and not actual Chrome like on all other platforms.

If you're talking about the rendering engine (webkit), say webkit or Safari engine if you must. It's confusing AF when you say Safari when you're not talking about Safari.

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

@pete-s said in DuckDuckGo:

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

It's odd, there's no info on it anywhere. Even their own website and wikipedia tell nothing of it. It's all about their search engine.

Last I knew, you can't actually replace Safari on iOS, only modify it.

https://github.com/duckduckgo/iOS

Looks like a real app.

That is assumed already in the "it's just Safari" statement. It's always a real app regardless of if it is Safari or not.

Well, "app" is user lingo.
There is a difference if it's an extension to a browser or a fork of another browser or just a shortcut.

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

It's odd, there's no info on it anywhere. Even their own website and wikipedia tell nothing of it. It's all about their search engine.

Last I knew, you can't actually replace Safari on iOS, only modify it.

https://github.com/duckduckgo/iOS

Looks like a real app.

@scottalanmiller said in DuckDuckGo:

Went to the website, no browser, just the search engine.

https://duckduckgo.com/app

At least for mobile.

@wrcombs said in DuckDuckGo:

Anyone using this browser?
I've heard good things online about it, but whats the community thoughts on it?

Didn't know they had a browser but now I'm going to give it a spin.

And when you run containers on another OS such as Docker on Windows, there is actually a linux kernel involved as well. Because containers needs the linux kernel features.

Would it be correct to say that containers are contained processes running on the linux kernel?

And the core technology is the grouping and isolation of processes that the linux kernel provides? Such as cgroups and namespaces.

So whatever container solution you run, the core technology is the same. The difference between them is building, management and automation of the containers?

Do you agree or did I perhaps get something wrong?

@jaredbusch said in Slow "internet" customer says...:

@pete-s said in Slow "internet" customer says...:

Thanks guys, that's good ideas to get started!

How many client devices can one AP handle as a rule of thumb?

Completely depends on the AP. The various UniFi devices are generally in the 200 to 300 device range. A few can do 500.

But that's the theoretical max right? Since you're sharing the bandwidth on the AP, how many clients would you like to have per AP?

Or is my thinking flawed?

Thanks guys, that's good ideas to get started!

How many client devices can one AP handle as a rule of thumb?

I have a customer and they have one location where they hold meetings with about 30 people in attendance and say another 10 people in the office. People in the meetings sometimes complain about slow internet. Problem is that they have 500 Mbit/s fiber and no hosted servers or anything on-prem.

I haven't been on location yet so I have no clue what equipment they have. I'm suspecting consumer grade AP/router/firewall stuff.

How would you go about troubleshooting this problem?