clutch

Originally posted by felix: Quote: Phillip, I guess the main factor determining if people actually like the new system is whether PPD (post per day) and the rate of new user registration has gone up or down. How are the usage rates. I've seen a few new names recently. I like the system as it is, especially how accessable you are about changing stuff like this "There are 33 news stories and 8 forum topics since your last visit." Same as the old "view unread posts:. Really what people seem to be rebelling against is the lack of pretty buttons and rounded, animated GIFs. If you actually look over the forum, there are not really that many operational differences as far as users go. I reckon that if you skinned the interface with s3xy looking rounded buttons and smooth lines, nobody would tell the difference. F The new news stories and posts thing just started today, and I wanted to say that it's appreciated. Now, what I still miss is the icons only being a different color when you haven't read the post. That was very cool. I am not a fan of them being color coded by time passed since the post came up, as it just highlights posts that I have already been through, but does not be finding the most recent ones any easier (I can come by 6-10 times per day at times). Having the newly added portion is nicer, and does help negate the loss of the icon coloring. The combination of the two would be awesome though.

Originally posted by harplayer: Quote: I can send you full screen. do you have NTcompatible address? Just PM me if you can't post the image to a webserver.

Originally posted by cybergenx: Quote: I think someone above said it already. What is the point. Linux is still pretty well reserved for advanced users/admins. I have yet to see one 'general' business run their company on anything but a MS based OS. I have the same excuse that lots of people do. "I would use Linux BUT..." But, A LOT of the programs that I use DON'T run on Linux. If they did, it is because of a 3rd party emulator. Which CAN be very buggy. An you pretty much got to compile certain portions of the code in a few of those. Who the h@ll has time for that? Find me a distro that works out of the box with the following programs (without alternate programs) and I will switch NOW. Adobe Premiere Pro Avid Studio Adobe Photoshop Pinnacle Studio Ulead DVD Factory ALL MS products (including Office, Viso, Visual Studio, excluding OSes) ACT! Battlefield 1942, Desert Combat Call of Duty Half-Life2 beta (don't ask) That is not an entirely fair comparison. I used Linux exclusively at home and as my client OS at work for more than a year, and found it to be quite reliable and suited *most* of my needs (well, a high number of them anyway). The big problem for me was a lack of nice font support across all of the libraries (simple X display with fluxbox, along with stuff running on GTk, GTk2, and Qt) and a good office and development platform. The one OS that *can* cover this, however, is Apple's OSX. They have a nice development environment from what I have read for their OS (similar in respect to VS.NET supporting Windows operating systems) and Apple has fantastic graphics and video support, including dedicated versions of some of those apps, plus other apps that would be superior to others listed. The other stuff, such as "all MS apps" is a rather loaded questions, as they were designed to only run on MS products and may not have directly ported versions for any other OS (with the exception of Office, as it does have a very nice version for OSX). I am not sure about the games, as I know some have been ported to the Apple OS. But I use an Xbox anyway, so I don't worry about these sorts of things . With OSX, you can get a very nice OS with a wonderful UI and on some nice hardware, provided you are ready to buy a new machine to get the OS. Apple has successfully put a nice and easy to use *nix (well, BSD) OS out there that soccer moms can burn DVDs and plug their camcorders into with little fuss. This same OS can answer almost all of your requests in spades, and do it even faster (in many cases) thanks to the new Apple hardware. So, there is a *nix OS that can do pretty much what you want, but do you want to pay the price of admission? For those of you that are leaning either way, I strongly advise that you dabble in as many OSs as you can. It's a great way to learn more and to widen your knowledge about computers in general. With that said, there are many cool new things coming from MS in the next year that will make admins lives much easier, and are slam-dunk responses to things that Linux has had for years. One thing that I can hint about (because of NDA stuff) is the new MS command shell and command interface. Try running a search for "msh" and "monad" and you'll see what I mean. If you can, hit up http://beta.micrsoft.com (formerly www.betaplace.com) and see if you can get in on this beta. Also, if you are a server user and want to tell MS what you thing about their server OS (please, be kind ) and what you think they can do to make it better, hit http://www.windowsserverfeedback.com and tell 'em what's up.

I have been at a Microsoft MVP Summit in Seattle/Redmond over the last week, and didn't have much time to check out the forum (not to mention how hard it is to find new posts, but that's another story... ). I have been a fan of Linux and Windows, and earlier I stated I was a fan of Apple over Windows as well. Now, here's another new wrinkle for the Linux fans. If you note, Microsoft has had several lawsuits over the years for all kinds of things. Software patents, monopolistic behavior, Java, etc. have all been in court with various companies and settled by MS. During these times, you have never seen anything from the companies suing MS stating that you, the user, are infringing upon someone else's rights. This is how it should be. However, with Linux, this is not the case. In addition, major patent holders (such as Novell, with SuSe) are sitting in the path of lawsuits by SCO and will be offering *limited* (if any) protection from their company to their userbase. IBM will probably be an exception, but we'll have to see what comes of this. The major problem is that SCO is *also* threatening end users of Linux products in the corporate environment. We have received letters from SCO (I'm a contractor for the US Army in Active Directory) in various departments, and there is now a widespread directive to hand off all communications from them to the Army's attorneys. Funny, we never got anything from Sun for using Microsoft's version of Java... But, it gets worse. While we have the services of legal staff to deal with this, but Linux is being pitched to the small companies as an "affordable" alternative to Microsoft since the core OS is free. Well, SCO is not differentiating between them and large corporations, and will come after them as well. And, since there are no real companies backing ownership of the kernel and core functions, there's nobody to defend the users that have purchased the OS and support from the vendors. Now, we have SCO suing both distributors AND users of Linux combined with the XFree86 chief-cook-and-bottle-washer jacking with his licensing requirements that effectively render the ubiquitous X-Server GPL incompatible, and make backers of it (such as nVidia and ATi, along with most distributions) question what they will use in the future (and thus, who will support older, GPL-compliant versions of XFree86 and where to move to next). Does this combination of issues make Linux more or less desirable for the enterprise? Bottom line, I feel that Linux is an excellent OS for appliance and admin use. It's great as a server for dedicated apps (ERP, DB apps, webservers, etc) and nice to use for troubleshooting various systems (networks, other OSs) since it has a vast array of utilities and can be made to run optimally on very old and slow hardware (and is fantastic on new hardware). As a desktop, it leaves me wanting for more. As a laptop OS, it doesn't even rank anymore. I use Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition on my laptop, and I have no problems with using Apple's OSX when I can get my hands on one (fav *nix client, as it has a wonderful interface and I believe that Apple will stand up to whatever lawsuit comes at it). I really hope Linux pulls out of this downward spin, and builds a stronger community because of it. It's just that right now I don't feel that it's the right choice for most situations anymore.

Does your DNS zone look like this? If it does not have those _msdcs and such directories, then your AD will not work consistently (if at all). If you use a zone that allows for updates, then your DCs will publish those SRV records in those subdirectories. Bear in mind that you will not have the "DomainDnsZones" and "ForestDnsZones" entries unless you are using Windows Server 2003 DCs with AD Integrated DNS.

Also, the NetBIOS thing is a bit different. Windows 2000 allows for NTLM/NTLMv2 credential resolution as a backup to Kerberos. This is why domains can be broken horribly but appear to be "working" at times. Windows 2003 AD environments are not as tolerant to misconfiguration anymore. BTW, what was the reg fix you applied?

OK. First, make sure that the DC has its primary DNS IP set to itself in its network settings (such as the DC having 192.168.1.100 for an IP, in those network properties point it to itself). If you have other DCs hosting DNS, make sure that they (for now) point to the first DC that you setup. This DC will act as a temporary master server. Next, switch the DNS zone to "AD Integrated" along with "Allow Secure Updates", and then make sure that all of the clients have their primary DNS server IP pointing to this same server. The idea is to have a pristine zone where all of the systems are registering their records properly. If you have some static records setup (which you should if you were using a regular zone) try deleting one for one of your client PCs, and then reboot that client. When the client comes back up, it should properly register its name and IP. Give this about an hour to "cook", and then make sure that the record is in there. Once that's good to go, and you see the name and IP in there, do this for each server that is on the network. Starting with the DCs, reboot them one at a time and make sure that their records get registered properly. What is probably happening is that you don't have the _msdcs, _sites, and various other SRV records registering in your AD. AD ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NEEDS THESE TO WORK. In the meantime, repeat this simple process for all of your systems. When you see all of your DCs and such registering their records and it's been working for about a day or so, you should remove the standard DNS zone copies from your other DNS servers, and add a new AD one for your domain. The DC should them pick up the copy from your existing DNS server (the first one that you converted to AD Integrated) and then these systems can be configured to point at themselves with their secondary preferred DNS IP pointing to another AD DNS box. This resolves your interior resolution issues. Now, to allow the clients to resolve outside IPs you need to configure forwarders on the DNS boxes. I don't have a 2000 box available (we're all 2003 at work and that's all I run at home) but it should be similar from what I remember. Open the DNS console, right click on the server, and select properties. From there, you should see a "Forwarders" tab. Enter your ISP's DNS server IP in there, and this will tell the DNS server to resolve any name resolution requests for domains that it does not host by asking your ISP's DNS box. I was just at an MVP conference this week in Seattle/Redmond and worked with the Directory Services team, and more specifically the DNS team regarding more simplified directions on how to setup DNS. I will be writing an article on how to do this very, very soon (hopefully this weekend).

Originally posted by marker0077: Quote: To what? Standard Win2k server? The only thing the server serves is printer & various file resources (standard file sharing) - that's it. I was under the impression that using the server OS will make the network run faster & people will be able to get to the files & whatnot faster as well. That's the *only* reason I am using an actual server OS. As for the machine itself, it's an old Pentium 1 (150mhz). It's not the best in the world but it serves it's purpose. I can't upgrade it to the 2004 server OS because it requires 164 megs of ram & this only has 64. Thanks again for your time. Yeah, run standard on that box. Datacenter was never meant for that, and neither were any of the other versions for that matter. If you are running simple file and printer sharing, and have less than 10 concurrent connections, then use NT4 workstation or W2K Pro at the very most. If you have more than 10 concurrent connections, then use NT4 Server or W2K Server on it (not adv server, and not DC server).

Originally posted by marker0077: Quote: The OS is Win2k DataCenter Server. For some odd reason they set things up all different then it is with the standard OS's; For example, this thing originally made me do the CTRL+ALT+DEL thing on startup & everytime the thing is locked up. I'm sure this is something similar but I do not find anything about this in the policies so I'm a bit lost atm. Thanks for your time. DC Server is designed to be installed and tweaked by the vendor that is selling it (Compaq, Unisys, etc.) which is why it is so different. This also explains why people that have accquired it through alternate means have so many issues with compatibility. Unless you are running > 16 processors or manage several virtual servers, there is no need to use this. Hence why it isn't meant to be purchased in the same manner that the other versions of W2K Server are. Switch server versions.

Check to see if the no-ip.com people have a proxy option. TZO.com can redirect incoming port 80 traffic to any port you want, so all clients can come in on their normal port.

Something is very, very wrong with your setup. Locking the console of the server will normally have no impact on network access. Have you tried using custom policies/templates on that system? Which server OS is problem on?

Originally posted by jerry atrik: Quote: i miss my "view posts since last visit" button i cant find it If you scroll up, you'll see my post, and then Felix's repost of that same question. It will come in a later release.

Originally posted by yakkob: Quote: Nice one Clutch, much appreciated for the Unlock user. Regarding the Server login and Domain Admins Roles, well, it's a bit of a toughie, but it's going to be up to someone else to give them that right. I will just argue the case against it (security, messing up Active Directory etc). <--Sorry if this sounds confusing but it's a long story. Cheers Been there, done that. I have been in situations where I needed a DC to host an FTP site, and I had to grant the logon locally right to an FTP users group in order to them to use FTP in IIS. There are times when this comes up, and that's why the settings are there. Just remember that it is a *REALLY* bad idea to do this.

Originally posted by Philipp: Quote: A new forum upgrade is coming. I replace phpBB shortly with my own message board application. The new forum is fully integrated in the main site and have some new features like the possibility to mark a post as answer. However, some features such as who's online are missing in the current version. Can I please have my "View new threads since last visit" link back?

If you disable the sidebar (with the pimpy clock) that should address the crashing issue. The OS also *needs* 512MB of RAM or more to get by. It isn't very happy running in virtual machines, but it does support Whidbey (the next VS.NET) so that's why I have been trying to use it.

This article shows how to do it with the OU Delegate Control wizard: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;294952 This article shows how to do it from the command line and with ADSIEdit: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;279723 As for logging on to the servers, are they Domain Controllers? If so, by default you can only logon as a domain admin via the default Domain Controller policy (and with good reason). Most places will not allow help desk personnel to work with domain controllers unless they are already admins (and thus, able to logon anyway).

Also, if your broadband service is contention-based, your client may lose sync with the server (and therefore lose its token to operate) and get dropped. Contention-based systems are those where the ISP rotates out the bandwidth amongst the subscribers. The biggest offenders of this are dish/satellite and wireless connection systems. These modes of delivery are very good for typical consumer use, but fail miserably on connections requiring constant attention, such as VPNs and remote control setups like PCAnywhere. Oddly enough, those tend to work better on dial-up connections because of the dedicated bandwidth (in this case, "dedicated" means that the connection is always there, rather than being put on "pause" in a round-robin distribution like the other services mentioned). Just a possibility.

XP Pro and XP Pro Corp are the same, with the exception of activation. Now, if it's some w4rez version, then it's probably more modified than you'd ever know...

If running Pro version in workgroup mode, try clearing the "Use Simple File Sharing" checkbox in explorer's properties (Tools > Folder Options > View).

http://people.freenet.de/sDuke/index.html

While I can (kinda) see why you came by asking this, it isn't something that I feel this forum should endorse. I am going to lock this thread.

Hmmm.... Well, it would typically be here: C:\WINDOWS\system32\LogFiles\SMTPSVC1 and is viewable using Notepad. You would get something like this: #Software: Microsoft Internet Information Services 6.0 #Version: 1.0 #Date: 2004-03-03 00:33:11 #Fields: time c-ip cs-method cs-uri-stem sc-status 00:33:11 192.168.1.25 HELO - 250 00:33:13 192.168.1.25 MAIL - 250 00:33:19 192.168.1.25 RCPT - 250 00:33:29 192.168.1.25 DATA - 250 00:33:31 192.168.1.25 QUIT - 240 My logs cycle out daily. You can also have it log to an ODBC source (such as SQL Server) and write an application that can query it, such as an ASP.NET app.

Also, if you are using Host Headers, make sure that no other site (started or stopped) is hosting "localhost" or "127.0.0.1" in the name box. You can add those names to the host header options for the site you are setting up, and it should work properly afterward. Once you start using host headers, you pretty much have to stick with it to resolve every possible hostname (NetBIOS, FQDN, or otherwise) in order to get them to work.

First, unless you have people using POP3 clients to check their mail from outside the network, I would close off port 110. Next, the domains you are sending to from your test domain *might* also have some sort of SPAM filter that performs reverse DNS checks on the domain name. So, if the test domain name is "mysuperdupermail.com", and the mail server name was "mail.mysuperdupermail.com", the receiving email server would perform a lookup on that name to find the IP. If the resulting IP does not match the IP of the incoming request (or cannot be resolved), then it rejects the mail. You can try enabling logging on the smtp service and see what it comes up with when you try sending emails to a good domain, and to one that doesn't work.

Here's some stuff from MS that should help you out: Windows 2000 DNS and Active Directory Information and Technical Resources (298448) http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];298448 How to Configure Active Directory on a Home Network (260362) http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];260362 HOW TO: Create an Active Directory Server in Windows 2000 (300921) http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];300921 Troubleshooting Common Active Directory Setup Issues in Windows 2000 (260371) http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];260371 Setting Up the Domain Name System for Active Directory (237675) http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];237675 Configuring Windows 2000 DNS to Support Active Directory http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/deploymentscenarios/scenarios/dns_02_sir.asp How to Verify an Active Directory Installation (298143) http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];298143 Remember, DNS is the absolute backbone to getting this to work. Make sure you understand how DNS is to be setup *before* you start deploying AD. Most of the stuff that applies to Windows 2000 Server will be the same for Windows Server 2003. However, Windows Server 2003 has more tools and utilities for working with AD, and that can be researched separately.