Posts made by bbigford

We have folder redirection for documents and desktop, but I'm still unsure how I want to handle AppData. There are certain things that are worth backing up, like Firefox/Chrome bookmarks, Outlook signatures in %appdata%\Microsoft\Signatures, etc. For bookmarks, sure users could sign into the browser, but I'm not going to rely on them for that; I want to handle things for them so I can sleep at night knowing their 10k bookmarks are backed up, along with tons of signatures.

But I have had so many issues with redirecting AppData, and various forums also say that's not a good thing to do because of weird issues that can occur with bringing over AppData to a new PC.

How's everyone handling AppData for Windows users?

@scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect for ChromeOS:

@bbigford said in ScreenConnect for ChromeOS:

@scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect for ChromeOS:

@bbigford said in ScreenConnect for ChromeOS:

@scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect for ChromeOS:

I had no idea that this existed until today. If you log into ScreenConnect normally from ChromeOS, you get nothing, not even the account management fields in SC. It's pretty disappointing. What it should do, though, is tell you that there is an alternative.

If you are no ChromeOS (not Chrome on something else, only ChromeOS) there is a browser extension just for ChromeOS that adds ScreenConnect functionality in the browser and works insanely well. Better, in fact, IMHO than the normal ScreenConnect client! The speed is near instant and super smooth. I'm really impressed.

So if you use ScreenConnect and wonder if ChromeOS is an option, it definitely is!

I have yet to find something that goes the other way, being able to support ChromeOS devices from a central console. I know... that's the design of Google Chrome, but still on the lookout.

We do use ScreenConnect so this is good information.

Google offers that, it isn't cheap, though.

What's the product? I haven't looked into it for quite some time (maybe 3 years, back when I was heavily supporting ChromeOS devices in the public sector). Is it something they've rolled into Google Apps G-Spot G-Suite?

Google Management Console, I think. $5/machine/month.

Ah, they've expanded capabilities then. Interesting.

@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:

@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:

@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:

@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:

The point is, there are times in people's careers where they onboard a client who have systems in a problematic state, or currently supported systems that just break. Microsoft (in this case) should be able to provide any and all support to be able to fix their software (whether it's the OS or applications) without requiring a reinstall. In the cases where Microsoft support was unable to find a resolution in a timely fashion, I had to revert to reinstalling applications and/or the OS.

I don't know if I agree there completely. At some point, things can get hosed to a point that they are outside of the operational reasonability of the OS. I mean, let's be failing, at some point any fix IS a reinstall, maybe not in name, but it's the same thing.

Example - all your files are corrupted and nothing works. What do you do? Replace those files with good ones. What's that called? A reinstall.

There is a huge gap between "the vendor has a bug" and "the client broke the system."

I'll agree there are times when a reinstall is required. Too often is it the knee jerk reaction of some vendors (not just Microsoft, but I don't want to get off topic).

Well there are two perspectives there...

One is "should a vendor be able to fix things"? And the answer is generally "yes", but within reason.

Two is "does it make sense to fix something broken when it is cheaper and more reliable to replace it?"

It feels good to fix things and know that we fixed them. But if it is costly or unreliable, it's generally a bad decision. Think about it with a car. You have an accident, your car is in rough shape. The cost to repair is $10K+. The cost to replace is $9K.

Which is better?

Repairing your car is not $10K, it's that or more. You can't be totally certain of the cost to repair until it is repaired. It's a dangerous unknown, what if it is more damaged than expected?

Also, a repair is not a guarantee. Sure it seems to be working, but is it as good as new? There's been stress and unknown damage. Repairs carry a risk.

Why pay the same or more to get something lesser with more risk? Better to start fresh with a known good system, and lower risk. Unless the cost to repair is much lower, it's not what the business would want.

I agree with both perspectives.

@scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect for ChromeOS:

@bbigford said in ScreenConnect for ChromeOS:

@scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect for ChromeOS:

I had no idea that this existed until today. If you log into ScreenConnect normally from ChromeOS, you get nothing, not even the account management fields in SC. It's pretty disappointing. What it should do, though, is tell you that there is an alternative.

If you are no ChromeOS (not Chrome on something else, only ChromeOS) there is a browser extension just for ChromeOS that adds ScreenConnect functionality in the browser and works insanely well. Better, in fact, IMHO than the normal ScreenConnect client! The speed is near instant and super smooth. I'm really impressed.

So if you use ScreenConnect and wonder if ChromeOS is an option, it definitely is!

I have yet to find something that goes the other way, being able to support ChromeOS devices from a central console. I know... that's the design of Google Chrome, but still on the lookout.

We do use ScreenConnect so this is good information.

Google offers that, it isn't cheap, though.

What's the product? I haven't looked into it for quite some time (maybe 3 years, back when I was heavily supporting ChromeOS devices in the public sector). Is it something they've rolled into Google Apps G-Spot G-Suite?

@penguinwrangler said in Connect Ubiquiti APs to a New Controller:

@jaredbusch said in Connect Ubiquiti APs to a New Controller:

@penguinwrangler said in Connect Ubiquiti APs to a New Controller:

@jaredbusch said in Connect Ubiquiti APs to a New Controller:

Controlled migrations have lots of tools and options.

But a downed controller has pretty much no option except to default the APs and readopt.

You will not even be able to SSH into the APs if you cannot log into the controller and get the device admin password for the site.

@JaredBusch is right. If you lost the controller it is a reset process. I recently went through something similar, however, it was the fact that our ISP at a location I manage decided to change out there cable modem and in doing so changed them from a static IP to a dynamic IP. Which is fine and easier for me but they didn't tell the client that they might have to reconfigure their equipment and didn't even bother to make sure they had internet. Switch cable modem and left. Client calls me and I get there and well the Ubiquiti Secure Gateway wasn't working because it was set to use a static IP on the WAN side. I was mad. So I had to reset the Ubiquiti Secure Gateway. Now here is the kicker, it would show up in my controller once I set the inform address but for some reason at least on the smaller USG's is that you had to ssh into them and set the inform address. Click on adopt in the controller and then while it says adopting in the controller run the inform command in ssh again. If you didn't do that it would be adopted but say disconnected. It was a long night until I found those instructions. Grrrr.

I hate the USG. Such a piece of crap.

I know, I wasn't the one that put it in, it is this one: https://www.ubnt.com/unifi-routing/usg/
They have the newer USG that are bigger. Are those any better?
https://www.ubnt.com/unifi-routing/unifi-security-gateway-pro-4/
https://unifi-xg.ubnt.com/usg-xg-8

Any better? No. They just give you more throughput and can handle higher density. Same concepts/software. If something requires more than the basic USG, I'm probably going a much different route. Ubiquiti switching/wireless is great, their security though... not so much. Maybe that will change; who knows.

@jaredbusch said in Connect Ubiquiti APs to a New Controller:

@penguinwrangler said in Connect Ubiquiti APs to a New Controller:

@jaredbusch said in Connect Ubiquiti APs to a New Controller:

Controlled migrations have lots of tools and options.

But a downed controller has pretty much no option except to default the APs and readopt.

You will not even be able to SSH into the APs if you cannot log into the controller and get the device admin password for the site.

@JaredBusch is right. If you lost the controller it is a reset process. I recently went through something similar, however, it was the fact that our ISP at a location I manage decided to change out there cable modem and in doing so changed them from a static IP to a dynamic IP. Which is fine and easier for me but they didn't tell the client that they might have to reconfigure their equipment and didn't even bother to make sure they had internet. Switch cable modem and left. Client calls me and I get there and well the Ubiquiti Secure Gateway wasn't working because it was set to use a static IP on the WAN side. I was mad. So I had to reset the Ubiquiti Secure Gateway. Now here is the kicker, it would show up in my controller once I set the inform address but for some reason at least on the smaller USG's is that you had to ssh into them and set the inform address. Click on adopt in the controller and then while it says adopting in the controller run the inform command in ssh again. If you didn't do that it would be adopted but say disconnected. It was a long night until I found those instructions. Grrrr.

I hate the USG. Such a piece of crap.

I tried liking it. I just can't do it.

@irj said in Microsoft support - downhill?:

Maybe I am an anomaly here, but I have contacted Microsoft support twice and I thought it was excellent! Yes, I got an Indian tech and manager each time, but they helped resolve my issues and one issue went on for a week and was well outside the scope of MS support call. The tech I worked with on this case went above and beyond and helped me configure a third party tool to achieve my goal even though it was out of Microsoft's responsibility.

It's an anomaly. Win some, lose some.

@wls-itguy said in Microsoft support - downhill?:

@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft support - downhill?:

This we hear a lot. Bad communications, unable to speak English, lots of passing the buck and run around, and then delay after delay presumably to push you to find an alternative to them actually doing something.

I couldn't get in to our Volume licensing center about two months ago. Called, got put into a queue, the girl, who could barely speak english said that she would be connecting me with someone to help me somehow just dropped the call after about 10 minutes. Called back and had to go through the whole thing over again. Was escalated but was told they'd have to call me back. 2 weeks and nothing. Turns out that Microsoft changed my account to a "business account" through O365 because the synod office is on O365 so they saw the account in their db and just merged it. Was a bigger PITA than it needed to be. Actually solved it with the help of the synod office guys. Just a plain old F story from Winblows.

I laughed out loud about the call drop. That happened to me -twice- on the last support call while trying to be routed.

@scottalanmiller said in Microsoft support - downhill?:

This we hear a lot. Bad communications, unable to speak English, lots of passing the buck and run around, and then delay after delay presumably to push you to find an alternative to them actually doing something.

It's gone way downhill in the past year. Even our channel reps have been pretty shocked. The lack of English has been an issue for some time (obviously not the only company outsourcing though). I don't mind someone having an accent, but there have been many times over this year during those support calls where I have to request someone else because I can't even pick up on the context of what they're trying to say; I couldn't string together even a few words.

Oh, and that's after getting bounced around by the technical support router for about an hour.

@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:

@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:

The point is, there are times in people's careers where they onboard a client who have systems in a problematic state, or currently supported systems that just break. Microsoft (in this case) should be able to provide any and all support to be able to fix their software (whether it's the OS or applications) without requiring a reinstall. In the cases where Microsoft support was unable to find a resolution in a timely fashion, I had to revert to reinstalling applications and/or the OS.

I don't know if I agree there completely. At some point, things can get hosed to a point that they are outside of the operational reasonability of the OS. I mean, let's be failing, at some point any fix IS a reinstall, maybe not in name, but it's the same thing.

Example - all your files are corrupted and nothing works. What do you do? Replace those files with good ones. What's that called? A reinstall.

There is a huge gap between "the vendor has a bug" and "the client broke the system."

I'll agree there are times when a reinstall is required. Too often is it the knee jerk reaction of some vendors (not just Microsoft, but I don't want to get off topic).

@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:

@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:

If they can't get it to work and recommend a rebuild, that's a problem for me. A rebuild is something a provider would do because they don't understand every single component of the OS to be able to resolve issues; it might be quicker, sure, but that's not the point here and is a separate discussion.

I've had both Ubuntu support state this - that you didn't just have to rebuild, but with a newer non-LTS build for them to assist (LTS only gets support as far as "upgrade to non-LTS").

And I've had Apple do the "sorry, it just doesn't work and we aren't allowed to fix it."

...and that is my biggest issue with support. It's okay for a channel partner or provider say "look, we're just not that deep into the architecture to understand how to fix this bizarre issue. We could probably figure it out, sure, but at what cost? It could take us 100 hours to resolve the issue without rebuilding, or spend 2 hours rebuilding -and keep in mind you're on an hourly break fix right now-. It's my recommendation, but ultimately it's your wallet."

I can swallow that... but a vendor being paid flat rate? Nah. I'm not rebuilding something that can sometimes be a complex build out. You (vendor) are not just an expert, you're the author/architect/engineer/everything. You can fix it and take my money.

Re: What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?

I've had a couple support calls in the last year that have been pretty bad though. Communication was the root of the issue. I would reach out multiple times for an update, asked for more diagnostic logs since a week or so has passed since they spoke with me last; another few weeks, rinse and repeat.

What's interesting is we're a Microsoft gold partner, so you'd figure we would get better communication. Technical resolutions though are typically >4 hours.

I've called Microsoft maybe 3 times in my career. One was for an on-prem SharePoint farm issue (User profile sync issue, took 8 hours but Microsoft was able to resolve this one), one was for Windows VSS (onboarded a client with some really funky VSS failing/inconsistent/time out issues like a writer wasn't releasing during backups, which were then failing intermittently... Microsoft was unable to resolve this one even using their own backup software). Not sure what the third one was though.

The extent of support is software only. If I'm using StorageCraft to backup a server, and backups are failing, Microsoft should be able to load Windows Server Backup on their OS and get backups to succeed. If they can't get it to work and recommend a rebuild, that's a problem for me. A rebuild is something a provider would do because they don't understand every single component of the OS to be able to resolve issues; it might be quicker, sure, but that's not the point here and is a separate discussion.

The point is, there are times in people's careers where they onboard a client who have systems in a problematic state, or currently supported systems that just break. Microsoft (in this case) should be able to provide any and all support to be able to fix their software (whether it's the OS or applications) without requiring a reinstall. In the cases where Microsoft support was unable to find a resolution in a timely fashion, I had to revert to reinstalling applications and/or the OS.

@scottalanmiller said in ScreenConnect for ChromeOS:

I had no idea that this existed until today. If you log into ScreenConnect normally from ChromeOS, you get nothing, not even the account management fields in SC. It's pretty disappointing. What it should do, though, is tell you that there is an alternative.

If you are no ChromeOS (not Chrome on something else, only ChromeOS) there is a browser extension just for ChromeOS that adds ScreenConnect functionality in the browser and works insanely well. Better, in fact, IMHO than the normal ScreenConnect client! The speed is near instant and super smooth. I'm really impressed.

So if you use ScreenConnect and wonder if ChromeOS is an option, it definitely is!

I have yet to find something that goes the other way, being able to support ChromeOS devices from a central console. I know... that's the design of Google Chrome, but still on the lookout.

We do use ScreenConnect so this is good information.

@taurex said in ZeroTier Virtual Adapter and SQL Express 2012 DB Troubles:

@scottalanmiller

So if they don't want to migrate to another solution, what would be the sensible option for them, then? Running it on a virtual host with two VMs - SQL and RDS with the ERP app installed? Thanks.

Yes. Screen scrapes don't require much. Keep RDS in a DMZ if it will ever be open to the world, or accessible from a dirty BYOD. Otherwise, over VPN for security.

I only ever hear Laurel.

Most of our clients are all handling updates through WSUS. For those not using WSUS, dbeato's GPO would work fine.

Since there is no inner or outter join specified, inner join is obviously being used where 'join' is specified (outter join having to be explicitly defined where an outter join is needed). How come you explicitly specify 'inner join' at the bottom when you could just use 'join' again as your inner join?

Obviously join and inner join accomplish the same thing, just curious why one is not explicitly defined and the other is.

@scottalanmiller said in When Is It Too Costly for IT to Cover Bench?:

@bbigford said in When Is It Too Costly for IT to Cover Bench?:

We outsource all bench work to local repair shops if the client wants cheap and it's out of warranty.

What about the more typical bench work like setting up computers on desktops?

Everything is build to spec and a 3 year warranty. I prefer Dell, others prefer HP. Only thing I have to do is image it to get rid of bloatware and add necessary software, which is all automated. Each desktop only requires pushing F12 and the rest is done, including joining the domain/etc. I don't do custom builds anymore, no hardware upgrades to save a small amount of money during the initial purchase (like slightly cheaper cost on SSDs, memory). Costs more to have me do more then just spend a little more and have it shipped with it.

We outsource all bench work to local repair shops if the client wants cheap and it's out of warranty.