@Obsolesce said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:

@PhlipElder said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:

If the product says it can run on Windows 10 or 11 and falls under the 20 connection limit then go for it but with one caveat: Make sure the hardware has ECC memory to avoid a memory flipped bit error that can wreak havoc and at least a RAID 1 array between two SATA SSDs.

No, the 20 connection limit ONLY applies to the built-in Windows file and print services. File sharing and printing (leaving out IIS and the others as they don't apply).

That is exactly NOT AVImark Veterinary Software.

What you said to do is undeniable theft.

Remember, ignorance doesn't make you immune to laws etc.

@PhlipElder said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:

If the product says it can run on Windows 10 or 11 and falls under the 20 connection limit then go for it but with one caveat: Make sure the hardware has ECC memory to avoid a memory flipped bit error that can wreak havoc and at least a RAID 1 array between two SATA SSDs.

No, the 20 connection limit ONLY applies to the built-in Windows file and print services. File sharing and printing (leaving out IIS and the others as they don't apply).

That is exactly NOT AVImark Veterinary Software.

What you said to do is undeniable theft.

@CCWTech said in Can you run a desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinaty Software?:

The minute you go beyond the very basic services offered in device connections, you MUST use a server OS.

Not only that, but specifies personal use only. Obviously that is commercial use in a dental office using Avimark.

@CCWTech seems super clear to me, and always has been:

@scottalanmiller said in Not much luck with Linux Distro's:

The hardware is fantastic to the point that I put up with it and am thrilled with how well it works.

Yes definitely this.

@CCWTech gotcha.

Yeah I've been on Mac the last few months. Still trying to learn to like it, there's a lot of minor annoyances or quirks and quality of life differences that make it harder to get used to. I still prefer Ubuntu over MacOS for work, and Win11 strictly for personal use.

@CCWTech did it run fine with Win11? Why go to an OS that is causing constant issues as you mentioned in the OP?

@JasGot

You can have M365 without email migration. If you don't want to move email to Microsoft 365, you can simply purchase licenses for SharePoint Online (standalone) or Microsoft Teams (which includes SharePoint features) for those who need it. You don’t have to utilize the Exchange Online portion of the license. Your on-premises Exchange can continue to operate as is.

OneDrive for Business is also an option. OneDrive for Business can be licensed separately from the full Microsoft 365 suite. It offers co-authoring functionalities when used with Office desktop applications. By doing this, users can collaborate on documents in real-time while keeping email on your on-premises Exchange.

Office for the web I think is free, that could be an option (not sure of it, haven't looked into it and it's been awhile).

@scottalanmiller said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

Awesome example happening right now.

https://montanastatefund.com/

For no good reason, this is geo-blocked. And in the worst way, without stating the issue but presenting the site as being offline. Works from some places in Montana. Works from some places in California. Blocked in Nicaragua or Bolivia where we casually tested.

Now before someone makes an insane excuse that there is no reason for those places to use that site, keep in mind that the Montana companies IT team members are in those locations being asked to deal with an issue that involves that site not working. And keep in mind that people from Montana are, presumably, allowed to travel. So any suggestion that there is never a need to see a state government site outside of that state, or the US, is ridiculous and hopefully no one would ever suggest such a thing. Obviously government resources are some of the most important things to be available to US citizens and US businesses when using IPs that aren't listed as being in the US.

So what is the actual problem? In blocking "other countries", that state accidentally blocked some ISPs in Montana, too. We know this because we have sites in Montana with dual ISPs. And on one ISP it just works, on another, it is blocked. Both are Montana IPs. But people on the one ISP don't get told that the resources is blocked, they don't get told what to do, they are simply shown that the resources is offline. That's a huge problem as normal people wouldn't even know to work around a broken geo IP block. Especially when they are in the same state.

The risks to geo IP blocking are big. The benefits.. are simply lies. There are none.

This is a great example where the technical reasons often listed for why you might want to geo-IP block can easily be shown to actually be reasons why you can't.

Yes this is a separate topic and point. It also ties in to why they are geo-blocking in the first place. Doubtfully racial intent. It's more likely technical in intent. That said, I do not know those people. For all I know, they are full on racists. But I just can't assume that without knowing. It's more likely they are geo-blocking due to technical reasons I listed here: https://mangolassi.it/post/554400

@scottalanmiller said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@scottalanmiller said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

There's never a technical reason. We've been discussing this for years. It's common IT knowledge that there is no technical reason to geo-IP block as it doesn't do what the name implies.

It is almost always a technical reason, if ever a racially motivated one. Technical as in one or more of the reasons (not an exclusive list either) I listed in my first post.

That's obviously false as there IS no technical reason to do so. Never once have I ever heard any plausible technical reason ever suggested. But tons of "just bad business" and sometimes illegal issues with blocking. Your list of potential reasons contained zero actual viable options. None of those were true or would meet the requirements. Saying "it's almost always technical" when no known technical reason even exists, is quite the stretch. Especially when, when confronted, zero examples of "it's technical" and always "we don't want to do business with 'those people'" have been given in real life.

What is your basis for this statement? How could it possible be plausible? Your first post IS the perfect example. You couldn't come up with a single real world possible reason. We pointed out that none of those apply to any actual scenario that anyone could think of.

Here's a list of technical reasons geo-blocking occurs (whether or not they are 100% effective is a totally different topic all-together):

Legal and regulatory compliance
Export controls
Licensing restrictions
Infrastructure/performance concerns
Economic considerations
Fraud/security concerns
Content sensitivities and appropriateness
Strategic business decisions
Taxation and financial regulations
Local partnerships or agreements
Network abuse prevention
Language and support concerns
Cultural differences and norms
Age verification requirements
Avoiding local controversies
Release windows (especially for media content)
Marketing and promotional strategies
Data protection and privacy regulations
Price discrimination
Local competition concerns
Digital rights management
Bandwidth and server cost optimization
Preventing arbitrage opportunities
Warranty and return policies specific to regions
Avoiding potential local liabilities
Addressing local customs and traditions
Time-sensitive offers or launches
Political or governmental restrictions

@scottalanmiller said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

There's never a technical reason. We've been discussing this for years. It's common IT knowledge that there is no technical reason to geo-IP block as it doesn't do what the name implies.

It is almost always a technical reason, if ever a racially motivated one. Technical as in one or more of the reasons (not an exclusive list either) I listed in my first post.

@scottalanmiller said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

Or more specifically a Croatian one. Oh, you are a Croat? You can't shop here. You say "But I'm not a Croat, I just moved there and live there". Oh, well, too bad, we don't serve people who associate with Croats either.

Does that not feel racist?

No. Croatian is not a race. "Croatian" refers to the people of Croatia or their descendants, and it primarily denotes a nationality or an ethnic identity. Race is a broader concept that typically refers to groups of people with common physical attributes and genetic traits, although the definition and significance of race vary across cultures and is widely debated. Croatians, like other nationalities, can be of various races. It's important to differentiate between ethnicity, nationality, and race.

@scottalanmiller said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

Or,

"This website is blocking every country in the world except the U.S., and their phone support also said it's due to the owners of the service having a huge prejudice against all non-U.S. countries."

So you are okay with saying it is racism, as long as we couch the verbage so to make it feel more palatable to sensitive people who are racist, and we say that they are racist, but we avoid the word to not hurt their feelings?

When do we care about hurting the feelings of people being racist? That seems crazy.

No, because not all prejudice is racism. And what you've been explaining in your experience isn't racism.

Early morning swim

@CCWTech said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@Mario-Jakovina said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@CCWTech said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

https://gephardtdaily.com/

There is one example.

It is geo blocked in my country.
But I do not find it racist

Should we call it unnecessarily discriminatory (Instead of racist?)

Let me put it this way.

If you would have said something more like:

"The website I'm trying to go to is only geo-blocking every spanish-speaking country. Is it just me or do they have a prejudice against spanish-speaking people?"

Or,

"This website is blocking every country in the world except the U.S., and their phone support also said it's due to the owners of the service having a huge prejudice against all non-U.S. countries."

That'd make WAY more sense, and something I could even get on board with, providing there aren't any technical reasons that make much more sense such as those I listed initially.

@scottalanmiller said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

You are mistaking ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, and linguistic group with race.

Which of those you use to identify with is your choice. But are all different things.

Yes, but I'm only using DNA.

Ancestry is what DNA most closely matches.

Race is more rooted in societal perceptions and classifications rather than strict genetic distinctions.

@CCWTech said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@CCWTech said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

You are mistaking ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, and linguistic group with race.

Which of those you use to identify with is your choice. But are all different things.

So what race is someone who is mixed?

They get to choose... How does that even work?

Example?

Someone who is white and black. They almost always choose black. Why? How do they even have a choice?

I don't know how to explain it well without sounding racist myself, but they are all just objective truths, so take it how you want. It's more-so about the physical appearance than anything.

For example, if someone is White and Asian, then of course they will likely have the physical appearances of both White and Asian. They might say White, they might say Asian. They might say they are White & Asian. Depending on the country this person is in or from, they may say they are Asian-American.

Same with your example regarding White and Black.

@CCWTech said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

@Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

You are mistaking ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, and linguistic group with race.

Which of those you use to identify with is your choice. But are all different things.

So what race is someone who is mixed?

They get to choose... How does that even work?

Example?

@Obsolesce said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

You are mistaking ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, and linguistic group with race.

Which of those you use to identify with is your choice. But are all different things.

@scottalanmiller said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

Arabs could be anti-Jewish

That would be religious / cultural (ethno-religious?) discrimination or prejudice.

@scottalanmiller said in Is it racist? I think it is.:

Jews could be anti-Arab

That would be language / cultural discrimination or prejudice.

You are mistaking ancestry, ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, and linguistic group with race.

Race is a categorization based on shared physical traits. (black, white, asian, indigenous)