What if you are already a Veeam customer and use Veeam One?

I hope their (Sophos') endpoint software is better managed than their UTM software has been this past year. Several updates have broken some pretty important things. I have 4 pending updates because I don't see a resolution to some of the items. One update fixes something, then breaks 2 more things. The next update doesn't even address some of the issues that were broken by previous updates.

I had a cheap subscription to webroot for my personal desktop and am looking for another "sale". I installed sophos free endpoint on my parent's pcs and they haven't been having any related issues or malware infections.

@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:

@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:

@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:

@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:

@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:

@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:

@scottalanmiller Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense, but man is that aggressive... I take it licensing some heavy hitting hypervisors is gonna cost a small fortune if you choose to use Hyper-V...

Hyper-V is free regardless of the number of cores.

Good to know!

The MS Server 2016 licensing applies no matter what hypervisor you are running.

VMWare, Hyper-V, XS, or KVM. If you want to install Server 2016 Standard as a VM on your hypervisor, then you have to buy a license that covers the number of cores the system actually has. Irregardless of the number of cores you assign to the VM.

Is that part different than Server 2012 R2? I don't remember the physical CPU count mattering when running ESXi with Server 2012 R2 VMs. That could just be because I don't have that many cores so it didn't apply to me.

Server 2012 R2 Was 2 proc's per license. Standard or DataCenter.

So if I had 4 physical CPUs running ESXi with 1 Server 2012 R2 VM with 1 vCPU, would I need 2 Server 2012 R2 licenses?

Edit: Would I need 2 Server 2012 R2 Standard Licenses?

@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:

@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:

@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:

@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:

@scottalanmiller Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense, but man is that aggressive... I take it licensing some heavy hitting hypervisors is gonna cost a small fortune if you choose to use Hyper-V...

Hyper-V is free regardless of the number of cores.

Good to know!

The MS Server 2016 licensing applies no matter what hypervisor you are running.

VMWare, Hyper-V, XS, or KVM. If you want to install Server 2016 Standard as a VM on your hypervisor, then you have to buy a license that covers the number of cores the system actually has. Irregardless of the number of cores you assign to the VM.

Is that part different than Server 2012 R2? I don't remember the physical CPU count mattering when running ESXi with Server 2012 R2 VMs. That could just be because I don't have that many cores so it didn't apply to me.

If I could, I would throw all of our printers into the recycle bin, after taking a bat, Office Space-style, to every last mother effing one of them.

@Dashrender I think he is referring to using it with an ISP, not building to building.

DON'T DO IT!!!!

I had it for 3 miserable years. Always problems with interference. Problems with equipment. Slow speed issues. Packet loss. Latency issues.

We finally got fiber in the neighborhood and have been on it for just over a year and have had 2 brief issues. A couple months in with the fixed wireless, I was pulling out my hair.

These are the graphic designers and are Mac fanatics. I would have ditched them long ago if I could have.

The point for these users is the Mac OS

@Dashrender I am still on-prem but plan on moving to O365 at the beginning of next year (If all things line up). I am using Barracuda's cloud layer, which takes the brunt of it and then have a local appliance that filters inbound and outbound.

OK. Based on the replies, I will just keep it as is. One less project.

@Dashrender I would be interested to find this out too. I trialed them a couple years ago to see about switching to them from Barracuda. Never got enough testing in to make a definitive comparison.

@aaronstuder said in Pritunl:

The install is super easy!

What are you running the server instance on?

@art_of_shred said in Joining/Binding Macs to AD Domain - Should I Bother?:

@wrx7m said in Joining/Binding Macs to AD Domain - Should I Bother?:

@Minion-Queen said in Joining/Binding Macs to AD Domain - Should I Bother?:

Binding them is easier now that it used to be, but if your current system is working... why fix what's not broke?

That is generally my line of thought. However, I was wondering if it is a best practice thing and if there was something I hadn't considered as a benefit.

In a sense, I think joining to a domain becomes a necessary evil. There are obvious access and control benefits, but at the cost of added complexity and security risk. If the Macs are set up in such a way as to be happy where they are, why introduce the security risk? Is there any real gain from being on AD that you are feeling pain from not currently having?

I was not aware of a security risk by joining them to the domain. How does it increase risk?

I am trying to ascertain if there is something that is missing from them not being bound to AD. Are there ADMX templates for GPO?

@Minion-Queen said in Joining/Binding Macs to AD Domain - Should I Bother?:

Binding them is easier now that it used to be, but if your current system is working... why fix what's not broke?

That is generally my line of thought. However, I was wondering if it is a best practice thing and if there was something I hadn't considered as a benefit.

@RojoLoco - I have never heard of nostalgia as a reason to keep a technology solution. LOL That made my day.

I have been working at this SMB for almost 6 years and never have added the Macs, of which their are currently only 5, to the AD domain. The users have their own local accounts and then use AD credentials to access shares on Windows servers. Side note- I have about 60 desktops and 35 laptops, all running Windows and on the domain.

We are getting a new Mac Mini to replace a failed iMac and thought I should see what, aside from having the user login with AD creds, the benefit would be? I had done this back in 2008 when I was doing consulting for an MSP for a customer that was all Mac client based and it didn't seem to work well. Obviously there have been several version changes on both sides since then so I want to see if I should even bother.

What does everyone think?

This is what dash is referring to:

https://www.netwrix.com/auditor.html

DECT has way better range than BT and from the few times I looked at BT headsets, the average user reviews are quite a bit lower than some (definitely not all) of the DECT units.

@RojoLoco said in Zip file attachment:

Our filter will sideline zips that contain executables, but otherwise we don't block them

Which filter are you using?