I have an IIS server that is a stand alone server not on the domain.
So users don't have to login to a local user database, Can I have the IIS server, authenticate users against the domain controller or atleast have the user's login name passed though to the IIS application?
It can be assumed that users will trust the website.
I've setup a a pre-production ESXi server and I'd like to do some load testing on the guest operating systems I have on it.
Specificly what I'm interested in is
I'm pretty new to load testing like this so I really don't even know what to ask?
I'd like to be able vary the options, so I can show at 1000 exchange users we need another Exchange VM created sort of thing.
Are they any standard bench marks?
On our website we want to have a link to a short video, couple of minutes long. We don't want to host it on our own server due to our slow upload speed & also we want it seachable on a YouTube style service. We're figuring as well we'll get more hits on it from YouTube.
The problem is our content filter currently blocks all video websites. If I unblock www.youtube.com so the video can be uploaded and viewed from within the the company network, then that grants access for everyone within the company access to all of youtube.
But I can unblock subdomains, so if a video hosting service allowed me to setup under a subdomain such as mycompany.youtube.com that would allow me to unblock just our video. I've setup an account on youtube and it does not appear this is an option with them. I'm hoping there are other services I'm not aware of that may offer this.
Alternately, any other ideas for how I can do this? If I can't find anything then I'll likely do one copy of the video on the internal intranet site & have the person upload the one to YouTube from home.
This one is kind of a part two of "What is preventing you from deploying desktop Linux in your environment?".
One of the comments was about small business and the receptions being the only onsite person and how Windows will be better for them.
So I'd like to see how many people have worked or done a Linux office, server and workstations in a small business that WAS NOT computer focused. So this would be a small law firm, accounting, maybe social services (they have no money right so it would be perfect for them). Small being likely less then 30, as high as 50 maybe.
Did it work? Was it worth it?
I wanted to include my background, I do small business tech susport to those types of customers. One of which is social services. I'll do my details about it after
Edit: I asked this because of the constant back and forth between Linux and Windows. I don't think Linux is a bad operating system, but I don't think it is suitable for "most" desktops, there are always the exceptions.
It's interesting to see here how many small businesses tried it and the issues they had. Most with the users or some application that just didn't work and a big part of that being the TCO.
For me, I try to train any customer to do any of their own level 1 help desk. Why are they calling me to reset a password, create a user, security group, file share, or heck in somecases in installing new printers. By enabling the customers to do this, I get less calls about it and the calls I do get are "real" issues.
On one network I have the computers are all locked down, no extra software that isn't needed is installed, over 100 users share about 30 computers and we never have issues with Windows be unstable. One guy wanted Winamp installed, that was denied because the computers include Mediaplayer (preferences aside it's about what you need). Another user wanted the Flash plugin, this was denied as well since there was no business need. About 2 years later an educational website that needed Flash for the courses was needed, so now Flash got installed, via a GPO push out in about an hour. It took me longer to find the network package and register on Adobe than it did to setup the GPO. A user could be on any computer and are not savy enough to find a file share on the server. So with GPO the My Documents folder is mapped to their user share and now even if they just hit save it ends up on the server.
On the other side, the servers, I am not a Linux admin, so if a customer wants to use Linux for servers I'll bow out since I cannot support them properly. So that brings up a good point, it's way easier to find Windows support if the regular guys isn't around.
I'd love to role out Linux and save the license costs, but the flexibility of a Windows server with a Windows desktop just cannot be matched. Especially when you add in a lot of customization drawing on some Windows functions that may work in Linux, but will be difficult to do.
I am looking for an FTP client that intergrates with the Windows explorer so that users will be able to just use it like a normal mapped drive.
My users need remote access to company files and VPN is just too slow, so wanted to try it with FTP and see if this works any better. Using the old style FTP client and uploadning/download is just not an option, too complex for them. Ideally I'd like to make this as close to the same as a mapped drive as I can.
Thanks