Nvm, I finally found the right command.

Remove-Mailbox -Identity "First Last" -Permanent $true

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

Xen... XenServer... Xen server... Something I haven't looked into is the pricing. Xen is open source & free at the same time, that I have gathered. XenServer is something that Citrix has created, and charges for (open source, but not free... Red Hat in the same fashion. Open source, but not free). Xen server, any Xen server (can be open source and free, or can be XenServer... It's just a vague term). Anyone have any input? I'm always looking at new options for cost effective deployment in the right environment.

It's all open and all free. XenServer has no way to not be free because the license protects you. Citrix didn't create XenServer, it's built from Linux' Xen project and CentOS. Citrix just bundled it and sold support. And even that is in the past. Xen, XenServer are both part of the Linux Foundation, are both GPL and that means free.

Ok, I'm seeing it more clearly now. What Citrix was selling, was basically just support (bundled with the software of course, but they aren't technically selling the software, because they can't).

Almost right. They WERE selling the software, but it is also free. The GPL license that they are under allows EVERYONE to resell anything. So Xen, KVM, XenServer, CentOS, Ubuntu, etc. They are all under the GPL. You are allowed to give them away for free, the source is open. You are ALSO allowed to charge for them. You meaning EVERYONE. I can legally sell you Ubuntu, CentOS, XenServer, etc. So can Citrix. We are just... selling you something free. Does that make sense? I can charge you $1,000 for it, but you can turn around and give it away free or sell it yourself.

Okay, so Citrix didn't create XenServer (like taking Xen and making a distro specific to what they wanted to do with it). XenServer is essentially just a distro of Xen, that the Xen team created. Is that right? I'm trying to step back and see this clearly. If Xen is to Linux, I'm guessing XenServer is to Red Hat, or Ubuntu? It's just a distro of Xen? I've been looking at Xen wiki and The Xen Project. But I haven't found anything that says "here is the history of all things Xen so as not to confuse any parts of Xen itself."

We have 3 Exchange databases. I have 4 users who have disconnected mailboxes, 2 of them I cannot wait for the expiration to run out. I need to purge them right now because it's for an active user that I'm testing with, and need everything clean. I've tried the Get-MailboxDatabase | Clean-MailboxDatabase but Exchange Management Shell says Clean-MailboxDatabase is not a valid entry. I've tried various links from Google but nothing is working. How can I purge disconnected mailboxes from all databases, right now? Here's links I tried:

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb232039(v=exchg.150).aspx

https://rikkoss.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/deleting-or-purging-deleted-mailboxes-exchange-2010-sp1-or-sp2/

http://exchangeblog.pl/en/2012/08/how-to-remove-purge-disconnected-mailboxes/

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

Xen... XenServer... Xen server... Something I haven't looked into is the pricing. Xen is open source & free at the same time, that I have gathered. XenServer is something that Citrix has created, and charges for (open source, but not free... Red Hat in the same fashion. Open source, but not free). Xen server, any Xen server (can be open source and free, or can be XenServer... It's just a vague term). Anyone have any input? I'm always looking at new options for cost effective deployment in the right environment.

It's all open and all free. XenServer has no way to not be free because the license protects you. Citrix didn't create XenServer, it's built from Linux' Xen project and CentOS. Citrix just bundled it and sold support. And even that is in the past. Xen, XenServer are both part of the Linux Foundation, are both GPL and that means free.

Ok, I'm seeing it more clearly now. What Citrix was selling, was basically just support (bundled with the software of course, but they aren't technically selling the software, because they can't).

Xen... XenServer... Xen server... Something I haven't looked into is the pricing. Xen is open source & free at the same time, that I have gathered. XenServer is something that Citrix has created, and charges for (open source, but not free... Red Hat in the same fashion. Open source, but not free). Xen server, any Xen server (can be open source and free, or can be XenServer... It's just a vague term). Anyone have any input? I'm always looking at new options for cost effective deployment in the right environment.

@scottalanmiller said:

@LAH3385 said:

Wait for Skull Canyon. it features quadcore i7.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/skull-canyon-nuc-ces-2016/

That is what I am getting for Black Friday purchase. Install with Samsung 950Pro. xD

Nice. What are the limitations of using an external GPU dock in that way? That could make for a good, portable gaming system.

Most external docks require some type of proprietary connection on both the external dock, and the device it connects to (making the dock wildly expensive when you factor in it also requires a GPU to be purchased). Aside from that, the connectors sometimes experience bandwidth constraint, when you compare it to PCI-E. For proprietary, Alienware comes to mind and at $200 just for the dock (initially released for $300), that's a bit difficult for me to swallow. http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/alienware-graphics-amplifier?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&sku=452-BBRG&redirect=1​

@Kelly said:

@BBigford said:

Between work, school, and studying, I rarely have time to read anything but tech related stuff. But when I do get time, I'd really like to continue reading the Ender's Game series. I read the first one (Ender's Game), and got side tracked on the second (Speaker for the Dead). Then maybe I can read the Shadow Saga (Ender's Shadow.... based on another character).

Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind are radically different from Ender's Game in the type of the story told (at a surface level). Add in the fact that SftD starts off very slowly, and it makes the transition very difficult at times. I tried reading it about 3 times before I finally got through it. I liked the three books, but for very different reasons than I'd enjoyed Ender's Game. It is worth pushing through them, but the flavor is very different.

Glad I'm not the only one. I'm starting up on my third time to get through it this next go-around. I've tried twice and got about 70% through. I LOVE the story itself, the piggies story is one I want to know but won't look up and have spoiled. It just didn't captivate me like Ender's Game for some reason. The action maybe? I liked the Battle Room a lot in the first book, and the constant testing they threw at Ender.

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

So wait, the Mango Lassi is not the official drink of MangoCon?? I thought it was so obvious...

Seriously

Welp, might as well just rename the site "Mango Mai-Tai" or whatever the official drink is going to be for MangoCon.

In other news: Apple talks about changing official logo to a more catchy orange or pear silhouette.

@RamblingBiped said:

@BBigford Ender's Shadow is fantastic! I've not read the rest of the series because I've heard it is a bit of a disappointment. I've read a fair amount of Orson Scott Card, and his Mither Mages series are decent. "The Lost Gate", "Gate Theif", and "Stone Father" all take place in the same world, with "Stone Father" being a short novella only slightly related to the plot of the others. I've still yet to read "Gate Father", which was release this last October and the third book in the series. His Pathfinder series is also supposed to be a great read.

I was hooked on Ender's Game early. Speaker for the Dead got a little dry, so getting distracted was pretty easy but I want to finish. I heard the series kind of drops off though... I heard Ender's Shadow was out of this world amazing. I also had heard mentions of The Lost Gate. I'll have to check that out.

So wait, the Mango Lassi is not the official drink of MangoCon?? I thought it was so obvious...

Between work, school, and studying, I rarely have time to read anything but tech related stuff. But when I do get time, I'd really like to continue reading the Ender's Game series. I read the first one (Ender's Game), and got side tracked on the second (Speaker for the Dead). Then maybe I can read the Shadow Saga (Ender's Shadow.... based on another character).

@Dashrender said:

@BBigford said:

@Dashrender said:

@johnhooks said:

@Dashrender said:

@johnhooks said:

Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM

d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer.

This means on the desktop in question, not on a server.

Ya so in VB on that machine.

Right, but I don't think it means you can have it installed twice (once directly on the hardware and a second time in the VM on that hardware). I believe (and willing to be proven wrong) that it means that you can run it one or the other.

The major exception to this was XP mode. Windows 7 Pro specifically allowed a user to run a XP VM inside a Windows 7 Pro install.

I'm 99.9% sure that's gone from anything Windows 8 and newer.

Therefore, once you upgrade the license to Windows 7, you wouldn't even be allowed to use the XP mode anymore, even if you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, legally.

It's absolutely gone, since it fell out of support.

Eh? What does Windows 7's rights to use XP Mode have to do with XP being out of support?

Well Windows 7 Pro offered it with a lot of XP support left and Hyper-V allowing workstations to build VMs was still out on the horizon, rather than just mount servers with Hyper-V installed. But with 8 releasing in 2012 Microsoft knew that XP's support was coming to an end in only 2 years. They wanted to start virtualizing everything in a completely different way (Hyper-V allowing locally built VMs on workstations). So I'm sure they figured instead of have that mode available, XP machines could be stood up within Hyper-V (not recommended to use XP after support, but still an option). Not saying I agree with the whole bit if that is true, but it's just a guess.

Edit: So maybe what I should have said was it's gone because Hyper-V took a different turn for workstations, rather than saying XP fell out of support.

@Dashrender said:

@johnhooks said:

@Dashrender said:

@johnhooks said:

Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM

d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer.

This means on the desktop in question, not on a server.

Ya so in VB on that machine.

Right, but I don't think it means you can have it installed twice (once directly on the hardware and a second time in the VM on that hardware). I believe (and willing to be proven wrong) that it means that you can run it one or the other.

The major exception to this was XP mode. Windows 7 Pro specifically allowed a user to run a XP VM inside a Windows 7 Pro install.

I'm 99.9% sure that's gone from anything Windows 8 and newer.

Therefore, once you upgrade the license to Windows 7, you wouldn't even be allowed to use the XP mode anymore, even if you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, legally.

It's absolutely gone, since it fell out of support.

@johnhooks said:

Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM

d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer.

CAL for remote desktop required?

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@johnhooks said:

Pardon my obvious non understanding of Windows licensing but could you just P2V three Windows 7 machines and access them that way?

That would be VDI and introduce all of the VDI costs.

How is converting to a virtual machine and controlling it within a hypervisor any different than building one from scratch and controlling it with a hypervisor? I was confused about the VDI part.

If you virtualized a desktop, it becomes VDI. VDI means a virtualized desktop.

I thought the VDI costs only came into play when you had a golden image that you were pushing to more than 1 client through PCoIP. As a shared desktop with multiple instances basically...

@scottalanmiller said:

@johnhooks said:

Pardon my obvious non understanding of Windows licensing but could you just P2V three Windows 7 machines and access them that way?

That would be VDI and introduce all of the VDI costs.

How is converting to a virtual machine and controlling it within a hypervisor any different than building one from scratch and controlling it with a hypervisor? I was confused about the VDI part.

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

@Kelly said:

@Dashrender said:

@Dashrender said:

@scottalanmiller said:

How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?

This is still in question.

The issue is that there there three teams of people with random times that they could be needing to use the old system. What I'm hoping to avoid is needing three computers just for that one department. But that may be unavoidable.

Do their day to day systems have sufficient horsepower to be able to run VirtualBox VMs? It isn't as seamless as XP Mode, but would be cheaper assuming you have what you need.

Same thought process, but any OS past Windows 8 can just use Hyper-V to create local VMs, unless VirtualBox is the preferred flavor.

VBox is type 2, so treats things differently. When you turn it off, it goes away. Hyper-V is type 1 and if you are only using the legacy system once in a while, it has impacts all of the time.

Totally depends on your needs. Hyper-V is definitely better for two equal systems where you flip back and forth. VBox is better for things you only need every now and then.

Good point. I've read many of your posts on type 1 vs. type 2. I think maybe I got ahead of myself in thinking they:

1.) Have enough horse power where it being a type 1 wouldn't be a significant impact and
2.) They use it very often, causing them to constantly flip back and forth.

They might, so worth considering. But it isn't a certain slam dunk. Totally depends on how they work.

My own experience is that I find VBox more friendly to use, but they are both fine.

I use Vbox now (since I'm still on Win7), but like using Hyper-V on machines that are 8 and above. What do you find more friendly about Vbox, just curious?

@scottalanmiller said:

@BBigford said:

@Kelly said:

@Dashrender said:

@Dashrender said:

@scottalanmiller said:

How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?

This is still in question.

The issue is that there there three teams of people with random times that they could be needing to use the old system. What I'm hoping to avoid is needing three computers just for that one department. But that may be unavoidable.

Do their day to day systems have sufficient horsepower to be able to run VirtualBox VMs? It isn't as seamless as XP Mode, but would be cheaper assuming you have what you need.

Same thought process, but any OS past Windows 8 can just use Hyper-V to create local VMs, unless VirtualBox is the preferred flavor.

VBox is type 2, so treats things differently. When you turn it off, it goes away. Hyper-V is type 1 and if you are only using the legacy system once in a while, it has impacts all of the time.

Totally depends on your needs. Hyper-V is definitely better for two equal systems where you flip back and forth. VBox is better for things you only need every now and then.

Good point. I've read many of your posts on type 1 vs. type 2. I think maybe I got ahead of myself in thinking they:

1.) Have enough horse power where it being a type 1 wouldn't be a significant impact and
2.) They use it very often, causing them to constantly flip back and forth.

@Kelly said:

@Dashrender said:

@Dashrender said:

@scottalanmiller said:

How many simultaneous users do you need for the legacy systems?

This is still in question.

The issue is that there there three teams of people with random times that they could be needing to use the old system. What I'm hoping to avoid is needing three computers just for that one department. But that may be unavoidable.

Do their day to day systems have sufficient horsepower to be able to run VirtualBox VMs? It isn't as seamless as XP Mode, but would be cheaper assuming you have what you need.

Same thought process, but any OS past Windows 8 can just use Hyper-V to create local VMs, unless VirtualBox is the preferred flavor.

I would obtain the free licensing now if it is applicable for your machines and not let that window shut. If you're on volume then don't worry about that portion... I would start testing now though if you are worried about compatibility. I know our financial software is going to be a nightmare so I'm putting it off. For regular users and admins, I would love to move everyone to Windows 10. The accounting department will be the last to switch, and probably the C-level execs. I would rather keep my phone from possibly ringing with an angry VP because of compatibility on some untested, obscure application that he/she didn't mention when asking about what all they use day to day.