TechEdBloggers.net goes live

TechEdBloggers.net is back again this year. I enjoyed last year’s edition; it was cool to see TechEd through the perspective of other speakers and attendees, especially folks who got to go to some of the many sessions I missed out on. To keep things simple, I’m going to post all of my TechEd-related stuff here, not on my personal blog.
I’m currently scheduled for two sessions: a troubleshooting panel discussion and a session on building high-availability Exchange 2003 deployments. Should be fun!

Comments Off on TechEdBloggers.net goes live

Filed under General Stuff, Musings

TechEd blogging

TechEdBloggers.net is back again this year. I enjoyed last year’s edition; it was cool to see TechEd through the perspective of other speakers and attendees, especially folks who got to go to some of the many sessions I missed out on. To keep things simple, I’m going to post all of my TechEd-related stuff over at Exchange Security, but if anything interesting or exciting happens I’ll back-link it here.

Comments Off on TechEd blogging

Filed under General Tech Stuff

A new twist on weather radio

You’ve heard of weather radios before, but this is way cooler. A small company called WxWorx has a really cool weather radio: it uses the XM Radio satellite system (which I’m listening to right now) to download real-time NEXRAD radar and a host of other data, including stuff for pilots (METARs, PIREPs, winds aloft, SIGMETS/AIRMETS, etc) and boaters (buoy data, wave height and direction, etc.). Both varieties integrate with GPS units, so you can get a real-time plot of weather over a terrain map, route chart, maritime chart, or topo map. Very slick. All you need is a laptop or Tablet PC, their XM data receiver, and $50/month.

Comments Off on A new twist on weather radio

Filed under General Tech Stuff

ExchangeFAQ.org relaunches

In 2000, I built a site of Exchange FAQs, driven by a (primitive) set of PHP scripts and a MySQL database. It mostly languished, because I didn’t take on the extra effort of keeping it up to date. Meanwhile, Andy Webb and a crew of Exchange MVPs had created a good set of Exchange 2000 and Exchange 2003 FAQs. So, I gave andy the ExchangeFAQ.org domain name, and his new rendition of the site is now live. It looks great.

Comments Off on ExchangeFAQ.org relaunches

Filed under General Stuff, Musings

PocketSkype

This is very cool: Skype for Wifi-enabled Pocket PCs. It only works with WiFi-enabled devices; if you only have GPRS, you can use IM but you can’t make voice calls. However, when it’s working, it more or less gives you a free WiFi-based cell phone. Pretty slick.

Comments Off on PocketSkype

Filed under General Tech Stuff

DTV in 2007?

Bob Thompson asks what’s going to happen with digital TV in 2007. Here’s the situation as I understand it. Bear in mind that DTV ≠ HDTV: local stations are free to broadcast digital signals with standard-definition programming, and many of them do. (See this FCC page).
There are (I think) 18 different DTV formats , all of which fall under the rubric of the ATSC (advanced television systems committee)– a sort of grandchild of the NTSC. These formats range from ordinary standard definition (SD) TV to the “enhanced” 480p format to full-blown 720p or 1080i, 16:9 signals. The big push behind the use of digital signals is bandwidth: the spectrum allocated for one NTSC TV channel can host several DTV channels. For example, my local PBS station is using its channel allocation to simulcast four different PBS feeds (including PBS Kids), plus the national PBS HDTV feed. The local CBS affiliate simulcasts sports– the other night, when I complained that the Duke game took over from the GT-Kansas game, it turns out that the Tech game was simulcast on the other digital channel. Of course, what’s likely to happen (at least in some markets) is that affiliates will continue broadcasting their existing SDTV signal, then simulcast shopping channels, which they can be paid to carry. This is exactly parallel to the claims by DirecTV and Dish that they carry 160+ channels, when 8-10 of them are shopping channels that no one wants to actually watch.
Anyway, broadcasters currently have to be all-digital by 31 December 2006. The FCC has wiggle room to push this date back until 85% of the people in a given market area have the ability to receive digital signals, either because they have cable or satellite or because local penetration of DTV tuners has increased. By July 2007, TV manufacturers will have to include digital tuners in all of their TVs; 36″ and bigger sets will have to include a digital tuner by July 2005.
Note that this says nothing about HD tuners, just digital tuners. All of the cost estimates I’ve seen are wildly speculative; for example, this WaPo article says that a digital TV will cost $800 in 2007. It’s hard to understand how adding a digital tuner to an existing $250 27″ set is going to triple its price, especially once the low-end, high-volume manufacturers get into the act.
As far as Ron’s original question about how this affects PCI tuner cards, it’s hard to say. There’s already an effort to make all TV sets plug-and-play compatible with QAM-based digital cable systems; it seems likely that ATI, or someone, will make a compatible tuner card that will offer the same functionality. (Right now, the FCC says that cable systems cannot encrypt retransmitted signals from local stations, so even without buying premium channels you should be able to get your local broadcast signals this way). It’s certainly possible to do DTV tuning with a little combined hardware and software; for example, the VBox DTA-111 works quite well with Microsoft’s Media Center for tuning and decoding HDTV channels, and it’s not that expensive (about $200). Economies of scale will drive these prices down.
A parenthetical note: what’s currently not clear is what will happen with satellite retransmission of local channels once they go all-digital. Right now, neither major satellite service retransmits HD network signals, with the exception of the CBS national HD feed. It’s pretty clear that they don’t have enough bandwidth to carry all of the locals, so that opens the question of what happens with SHVIA’s upcoming revision.

Comments Off on DTV in 2007?

Filed under HDTV and Home Theater

How can you tell when a bank’s lying?

Here’s a hint: when their website is down at 10am on a Monday and they say it’s for “routine maintenance”.

Comments Off on How can you tell when a bank’s lying?

Filed under Musings

Still more on iSCSI and Exchange

I just can’t help myself sometimes: I am a serial columnist. (Groan. Hey, at least I didn’t make a pun on serial-ATA…)
Last week’s Exchange UPDATE column was an update to my previous column on iSCSI and Exchange; I’d already blogged about the change, but the column has some additional material, including a discussion of MS’ KB article describing support boundaries for NAS/SAN devices with Exchange 2003.

Comments Off on Still more on iSCSI and Exchange

Filed under General Stuff, Musings

Render unto Caesar

Tough choice for a Sunday night: do my taxes, or watch The Ten Commandments in HD. Hmmm.
Update: it’s not in HD. Drat.

Comments Off on Render unto Caesar

Filed under HDTV and Home Theater, Spiritual Nourishment

Windows &.NET Magazine adds RSS feeds

This is really cool: Windows &.NET Magazine now has a page of RSS feeds. The Exchange feed is my favorite.
Update: the feeds occasionally time out, and they seem to only have five items in each category. They also don’t include the Exchange UPDATE newsletter. Dang.
Update again: the Exchange feed hasn’t been updated since my original post, which I take as a bad sign. I’ve emailed my editors to see what’s up.

Comments Off on Windows &.NET Magazine adds RSS feeds

Filed under General Stuff, Musings

Oracle’s patch issuance policy: bad

All right, I’ve had it. I am tired of waiting for “real” media to pick up on this story.
Oracle won’t give its customers security patches unless they buy a support agreement. This is flat-out wrong. It holds customers hostage in a particular nasty and egregious way: if you don’t buy support, you can’t get the patches you need to protect against vulnerabilities in products you’ve bought and paid for even if they’re still current.
If Microsoft did this, they’d be (rightly) pilloried. As it is, you can get any security patch for any supported product for free, either as part of a service pack or by directly calling Microsoft PSS. Microsoft has even extended the end-of-support date for Windows 98 and Windows NT so that customers can continue to get support (and patches) for them.
Of course, very few large Oracle customers run in production without support, as you would expect from such a large, complex group of products. Perhaps their customers don’t care that they can’t get patches without support because they all have it. I still think it’s wrong.
(n.b. I don’t know what IBM and Novell do in this scenario, but I aim to find out. Stay tuned.)

Comments Off on Oracle’s patch issuance policy: bad

Filed under Smackdown!

More on iSCSI and Exchange

My column this week (which I can’t link to right now, thanks to a bug at the Windows &.NET web site) was on iSCSI and Exchange. A helpful MS PR person wrote to point out an error: there’s not actually a separate “certified for Exchange logo”. If an iSCSI device has the “Designed for Windows” logo, it’s supported for use with Exchange.
Update: it turns out that the Windows Catalog uses the “Designed for Windows XP” logo for iSCSI devices. Even though the column, and the press release which inspired it, talk about the “Designed for Windows” logo, those products listed in the catalog are certified for use with Exchange 2003.

Comments Off on More on iSCSI and Exchange

Filed under General Stuff, Musings

Automatic conversion of distribution groups to security groups

In a recent post to NTBugTraq, Rene points out what he calls a “problem” with Exchange 2000 and Exchange 2003: under some circumstances, Exchange will convert a distribution group to a security group.

Regular users with no rights to modify ad security groups have the ability to change a distribution list to a security group.
Steps to recreate problem.
1: User opens a mailbox with Outlook 2000 / XP / 2003
2: Navigates to mailbox permissions
3: Add distribution list from Gal access as contributor.
4: Save changes
Once the user adds the distribution list Exchange will convert the distribution list to a like security group.

As another reader correctly noted, this behavior is by design, and it’s controlled by the msExchDisableUDGConversion attribute on the Exchange organization object. In Exchange 5.5, you could apply public folder permissions by assigning DLs. That doesn’t work in Exchange 2000 and later, since a distribution group doesn’t have a SID and thus cannot be used for permission assignment. Normally this conversion only takes place during an upgrade from Exchange 5.5 (a process described in chapter 10 of the Exchange 2000 resource kit). The default attribute value of 0 lets the conversion take place at any time; a value of 1 only allows conversions requested by the store (not by clients; this setting would fix Rene’s problem). A value of 2 disallows all such conversions (but as described in this webcast, this value isn’t recommended.) Kieran McCorry has a good article that talks more about the conversion process, why it’s necessary, and how to control it.

Comments Off on Automatic conversion of distribution groups to security groups

Filed under Security

Our new line of business

Peter, John, and I have been talking about diversifying the range of services we offer. I think this bid would be a good place to start.

Comments Off on Our new line of business

Filed under Musings

Work ethic

Tim asks:

What happened to the drive? What happened to the desire? Where are all the people out there working to make a better world for their children, not just making a house payment for their children?

Some of us are here (but we can’t hire you because you’d have to move to Seattle and Mom would kill me.)
Interestingly enough, part of our priesthood lesson on self-reliance yesterday dealt with this very topic. Consider the man who visited a stone quarry and asked three stone cutters what they were doing. “Cutting stone,” said the first one. “Earning a living for my family,” said the second. “Helping to build a glorious cathedral,” said the third. What a great difference in attitude between the three– even though all three of them are right and correct, only one has looked beyond his to-do list to see the greater purpose in his daily labor. I’m not exactly building a cathedral, but I can help build up my family, my community, and my country by doing good work and trying to live what I believe in instead of just coasting through the day checking off items on my (regrettably long) to-do list.
Now, back to work.

Comments Off on Work ethic

Filed under Spiritual Nourishment