Ubuntu 18.10 on vultr

Setup MeshCentral with mongodb using the the Increased Security Install on 4.8 of Users guide.
So far all is working fine except for updating.

Following the instructions for updating manually is not working wondering if anyone else has run into this same issue.

mesh1:~$ sudo systemctl stop meshcentral.service
mesh1:~$ cd /opt/meshcentral
mesh1::/opt/meshcentral$ sudo npm install
npm WARN saveError ENOENT: no such file or directory, open '/opt/meshcentral/pac
kage.json'
npm WARN enoent ENOENT: no such file or directory, open '/opt/meshcentral/packag
e.json'
npm WARN meshcentral No description
npm WARN meshcentral No repository field.
npm WARN meshcentral No README data
npm WARN meshcentral No license field.

up to date in 1.794s
mesh1::/opt/meshcentral$ sudo chown -R meshcentral:meshcentral /opt/meshcentral
mesh1:/opt/meshcentral$ sudo systemctl start meshcentral.service
mesh1:/opt/meshcentral$

In MeshCentral, I check server version and this is what I get.

There is a /opt/meshcentral/package-lock.json and wondering if that is stopping the upgrade.

Any clues?

@DustinB3403

Did you ever figure out the issue with the RX20's?

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing MeshCentral 2 to ScreenConnect:

My new morning ritual, seeing if I have a MeshCentral update to deploy They seem to come out about every three hours during the production day.

I think you brought that on yourself!

Ubuntu is my preference. I tried a couple different distro's in the past but my interest wasn't peaked till I used Ubuntu. Trying to use Fedora for some small projects but find myself going back to Ubuntu.

@wrx7m said in VMWare Shutdown:

For vmware, if you are going to shutdown only (no patches), do you always put in maintenance mode first?

I do if I have the extra few seconds that it takes as my servers will all be powered off anyways.

@Donahue said in On-Premises soft PBX:

@Donahue said in On-Premises soft PBX:

@Dashrender said in On-Premises soft PBX:

@Donahue said in On-Premises soft PBX:

my phones are on a completely physically separate network.

Why?

It started with a an idea that we should have dual drops at all our offices, back when were just thinking of voip and we needed to redo the wiring anyways. But as it turned out, our phone system is completely isolated from our network, it's not even our equipment except for the cables. Unfortunately, this was before I saw the light and found ML. Now we are contractually obligated to have this terrible expensive phone system for the next 3-1/2 years. I will be switching when that contract is up, and then I can do whatever I want.

inexperience^2

@Donahue - Your not alone so don't worry. I will be changing in about 2 years myself.

@JaredBusch said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

Just had this email exchange today with Adams Telecom.
Note: The existing service was 50/50 with a 3 year contract at $80. Contract expired this month.

This is what happens when small municipalities are ignored. They work with local telecoms or do it themselves. Ans the costs are always better.

Must be F'ng NICE! B#&%@

@JaredBusch said in Suggested vendor for selling used equipment?:

The local scrappers come and take it all, no charge. Then they spend their time tearing the shit apart for the metals.

I wish I had this. I have to drop it off 20 miles away or they charge to pick it up.

@Dashrender said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

@JaredBusch said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

Where I'm at, you pay $49 for ATT DSL 7.5 down (that is it) or $90 to Spectrum for 100Mb down.

I am in a suburb in OH but I live on a dead end street of a main street. 400 yards away ATT Fiber Uverse with 10/100 for $79. They won't run down my street at all.

make a deal with someone close by to install to their premise and use Ubiquiti gear to send it to your house.

That would be nice wouldn't. Just need to cut down some dense 100' Oak and Maple trees too.

Although, I could use another friend.

zero line of sight at all?

Correct. I just don't know if I could put up a 30' pole on their home and mine to get a line of sight.

Trust me, it is really f***ing annoying around here. The only solution is to move but that won't happen anytime soon.

ATT and DirectTV came around recently and I seen my neighbors switch over. Then they realized how crappy ATT DSL was and how the Dish's hard a hard time getting a signal through the trees on a windy day. Needless to say, all 8 of them switched back to Spectrum.

@JaredBusch said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

Where I'm at, you pay $49 for ATT DSL 7.5 down (that is it) or $90 to Spectrum for 100Mb down.

I am in a suburb in OH but I live on a dead end street of a main street. 400 yards away ATT Fiber Uverse with 10/100 for $79. They won't run down my street at all.

make a deal with someone close by to install to their premise and use Ubiquiti gear to send it to your house.

That would be nice wouldn't. Just need to cut down some dense 100' Oak and Maple trees too.

Although, I could use another friend.

Where I'm at, you pay $49 for ATT DSL 7.5 down (that is it) or $90 to Spectrum for 100Mb down.

I am in a suburb in OH but I live on a dead end street of a main street. 400 yards away ATT Fiber Uverse with 10/100 for $79. They won't run down my street at all.

@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

With Comcast, they were going to have to pay the construction on TOP of the higher subscriber fees.

Like I said, unless I am misunderstanding something, the town will have to raise taxes of $.29 per $1k to get the $1.4 Mil and also charge $79 - $99 per month?

Yes, but they 1) Have to raise $450K either way and 2) they only raise it IF they don't get enough subscribers and only IF they don't do Comcast.

With Comcast they have to raise taxes either way. Without Comcast, they might not have to.

Ok. So I did have a little misunderstanding. I thought the $1.4 mil had to be raised (via taxes) no matter what.

@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

With Comcast, they were going to have to pay the construction on TOP of the higher subscriber fees.

Like I said, unless I am misunderstanding something, the town will have to raise taxes of $.29 per $1k to get the $1.4 Mil and also charge $79 - $99 per month?

@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

With Comcast, they were going to have to pay the construction on TOP of the higher subscriber fees.

I am not saying that it is not good deal to go with the municipal system, just that based on household income and the % of participation needed to keep costs down may not work out as planned.

If 10% of the possible 70% needed to keep costs lower are under $12K per year, they could afford Comcast's $10 per month but not the $99 for Gigabit. It is not stated in the article but the town would need at least 80% of the town at median income levels (to hit the 70% participation rate) to make it work without increase in fees or additional taxes.

@scottalanmiller said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

@pmoncho said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

@mlnews said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

Comcast offered to wire up Charlemont, Mass. for $462,000—town said, "no."

A small Massachusetts town has rejected an offer from Comcast and instead plans to build a municipal fiber broadband network.

Comcast offered to bring cable Internet to up to 96 percent of households in Charlemont in exchange for the town paying $462,123 plus interest toward infrastructure costs over 15 years. But Charlemont residents rejected the Comcast offer in a vote at a special town meeting Thursday.

"The Comcast proposal would have saved the town about $1 million, but it would not be a town-owned broadband network," the Greenfield Recorder reported Friday. "The defeated measure means that Charlemont will likely go forward with a $1.4 million municipal town network, as was approved by annual town meeting voters in 2015."

About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports.

Using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemont,_Massachusetts

With so few homes, the % needed to keep costs down may be hard to reach with a median income of $50K per household and 10% of the population around the poverty line.

I sure hope it works out for them though.

Only $833 / person in one time construction costs. Assume that's $3300 / household to cover.

Comcast would likely be something like $90/mo and this will likely cost more like $10/mo (in taxes, direct fees, whatever.) That would suggest that it would pay for itself in four years, and be a massive cost savings for the poor after that.

And that's assuming no businesses or grants involved in the process, which might lighten the load considerably. Or if there is cash in the village coffers, then they could avoid interest and it would be closer to three years to pay off.

I unless I misunderstood, the town will still charge $79 a month and $99 if only 40% adoption.

@mlnews said in Comcast rejected by small town—residents vote for municipal fiber instead:

Comcast offered to wire up Charlemont, Mass. for $462,000—town said, "no."

A small Massachusetts town has rejected an offer from Comcast and instead plans to build a municipal fiber broadband network.

Comcast offered to bring cable Internet to up to 96 percent of households in Charlemont in exchange for the town paying $462,123 plus interest toward infrastructure costs over 15 years. But Charlemont residents rejected the Comcast offer in a vote at a special town meeting Thursday.

"The Comcast proposal would have saved the town about $1 million, but it would not be a town-owned broadband network," the Greenfield Recorder reported Friday. "The defeated measure means that Charlemont will likely go forward with a $1.4 million municipal town network, as was approved by annual town meeting voters in 2015."

About 160 residents voted, with 56 percent rejecting the Comcast offer, according to news reports.

Using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemont,_Massachusetts

With so few homes, the % needed to keep costs down may be hard to reach with a median income of $50K per household and 10% of the population around the poverty line.

I sure hope it works out for them though.

@scottalanmiller said in Fedora install weirdness:

@JaredBusch said in Fedora install weirdness:

@Dashrender said in Fedora install weirdness:

I did NOT set a hostname

I know that Windows doesn't let you specify during initial install anymore. Such a stupid thing.

Causes so many unnecessary steps and/or headaches for us. It's ridiculous. Such a trivial thing, made so hard.

@scottalanmiller said in Fedora install weirdness:

@JaredBusch said in Fedora install weirdness:

@Dashrender said in Fedora install weirdness:

I did NOT set a hostname

I know that Windows doesn't let you specify during initial install anymore. Such a stupid thing.

Causes so many unnecessary steps and/or headaches for us. It's ridiculous. Such a trivial thing, made so hard.

No doubt.

I like the old SCO UNIX 5.6 and prior install routine. Answer all needed questions with 4 screens and let it install. No muss, no fuss and all is set after it reboots. It was nice.

@JaredBusch said in Fedora install weirdness:

@pmoncho said in Fedora install weirdness:

I always set the host name and IP so I have not never run into this issue personally.

Setting the hostname, of course. but setting the IP? Never. DHCP reservation, unless a hypervisor, router, or DHCP/AD/type server.

In regards to the amount of work, isn't Static IP basically the same as a DHCP reservation?

@Dashrender said in Fedora install weirdness:

As for reverse DNS still having an entry - it hadn't been scavenged yet, that's set for 30 days, and the fact that it pulled this name in didn't hurt anything, it was simply odd.

IMO, if using DHCP with DNS settings, not setting an IP or host name during install, I would expect the results you received.

I always set the host name and IP so I have not never run into this issue personally.

@scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

@pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

I can understand both sides of the situation. I would have to look at the depth of knowledge in each case.

The contrived scenario was based on comparable depth of knowledge once probed. So that the isolated difference was "how long it took to achieve similar knowledge."

Oh my bad. Ok. Well then Larry could definitely be a slacker.

Although, isn't the probing done by the interviewer? What if the interviewer did not ask the right questions? I guess that is where the difference may lie.