@black3dynamite said in Disable update checks in the Nextcloud client (windows): @JaredBusch said in Disable update checks in the Nextcloud client (windows): jsut upgraded a system from 2.5 something. I made sure the key was set first. after the upgrade it is gone. What a pain in the ass. Where did you add the registry key? HKLM\SOFTWARE\Policies\Nextcloud GmbH\Nextcloud? I did not add the second key because that was to prevent user override? My users don't have admin rights so even if they attempted ot override, it would never work.

This is the provider I use to clone KVM guests with Terraform https://github.com/dmacvicar/terraform-provider-libvirt

@scottalanmiller Yeah I check daily for updates to make sure my things are up to par and was surprised when I saw such a huge list of updates waiting.

@dustinb3403 said in Weird question - How often are CentOS packages updated: @jaredbusch said in Weird question - How often are CentOS packages updated: @dustinb3403 said in Weird question - How often are CentOS packages updated: @jaredbusch said in Weird question - How often are CentOS packages updated: @dustinb3403 said in Weird question - How often are CentOS packages updated: @stuartjordan said in Weird question - How often are CentOS packages updated: Don't you want to use a cron so you don't have to check daily? I have other processes that require manual intervention, so checking only takes a moment. I would still use yum-cron to do it. Just don't tell it to install if you don't want it to. You will still get the email when things are available. That does seem useful. No timers to set like needs handled with dnf-automatic just install and edit the conf file. Installing it and configuring it now... If you do yes / yes / no it will even have them downloaded for you. not that that is much of an issue generally.

Have not seen any patching issues in the real world yet. Yet....

@JaredBusch said in Using dnf-automatic to keep Fedora up to date: @FATeknollogee said in Using dnf-automatic to keep Fedora up to date: There really need to be a setting for this in the Workstation GUI. By default Fedora Workstation + Cinnamon uses dnfdragora which is a totally separate process. Yes, I realize that. This setting exists in Cockpit, no reason why it can't be in WS!

@jaredbusch said in Trying the UNMS built in updater: refreshed the browser and it shows 0.9.2 so the updater stalled visibly, but did finish. Just like on prom night. . . Youtube Video

Just select Windows 10.

This person had the same issue, see below: https://www.tenforums.com/general-support/59759-strange-issues-after-anniversary-update.html The AISuite 3 with Asus causes this. Just make sure to uninstall or start WIndows without any of the additional startup programs or services enabled.

Microsoft released a new cumulative update last night that appears to address this for Windows 10 I haven't tested it yet. This specific link is for version 1703 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4022716/windows-10-update-kb4022716 1607 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4022723/windows-10-update-kb4022723 1511 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4032693/windows-10-update-kb4032693

FYI, screens have changed a bit for Version 14

@jaredbusch Good to know. I was thinking about doing this but I wasn't sure if it was truly still in beta or Sangoma was not keeping up to date.

Since today is patch Tuesday, I'll wait and see what comes down.

@JaredBusch said in Are MS Windows Update servers capped to 10mbps: @Dashrender said in Are MS Windows Update servers capped to 10mbps: I definitely haven't had a cap while downloading updates, I'm pegging my 100 mb down pipe. Right, but then the sad thing is why was the download taking so long if I was only seeing the backup running.. F'n windows update process..... yep.. the process lies about what's going on.. I think there must be some type of post download processing going on, but it's still listed at downloading, but the network speed shows no download happening.

@JaredBusch said in Windows Update Error 0x800B0100: @nadnerB said in Windows Update Error 0x800B0100: I have been patching Windows 7 machines that haven't been turned on for a few months and have found that the update process takes an age of man to complete without manual intervention. (local WSUS) Fortunately, I have found a process that's worked to speed up the update process. Download and Install the latest Windows Update Agent -- here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-au/kb/949104 Run MS Windows Update Diagnoistic tool -- here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2714434 Install Windows6.1-KB3172605-x64 (post install reboot required) -- here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=53332 run wuauclt /r /a That is way too intense on IT staff time. Click check for updates. Close window and tell user to work like normal. Next morning, click install. Close window and tell user to work like normal and when it pops up to reboot, do so. Way less IT time involved. Yes, this is true but it can be done while doing other things on the PC. You know, multitasking

@Dashrender said in Firmware update for HP printers bans third-party ink: Again, getting less than 20 people quickly to make a vote is one thing, getting 1000's is another. Perhaps the number of companies that have 1000's that matter (i.e. it takes thousands of shareholders to make up a majority, it can't be done with less) is so small that it's not relevant to the conversation? That's likely only a handful of companies. If any, it's only a theory that any like that exist. Normally there are either super large individual investors or funds that hold the majority of shares in just four or five representatives. They normally talk directly. But if there was even need for an exception to this, investors can do whatever they want. They can have email voting and require responses in five minutes if they want.

@Dashrender said: @JaredBusch said: Debit is significantly cheaper to the merchant. If you want to do your part to lower prices, use debit always. I completely know where this is coming from - but do you think enough people are doing this to make the vendor lower their prices? and even if enough people were doing it, would the vendor lower prices or instead just keep the extra profit? Around here about 2 years after gas prices started to sky rocket, delivery companies added hefty fuel surcharges. Now that fuel has gone down have they dropped them, or even reduced them? uh nope. Evil Corp Inc. around here actually did http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-ferries-eliminates-fuel-surcharge-as-oil-prices-fall-1.2873739

@JaredBusch said: @Dashrender said: There are always fringe cases. but most of my users are not such cases. My users either. Sadly two of those boxes are on premise still. One is Exchange 2007 and the other is Exchange 2010 and OWA sucks there. I circle the O365 question back to the people involved every few months. On premise at customer sites? Yeah mine too, and I'll be upgrading to Exchange 2016 very soon to give the better OWA experience before we move to O365.

@gjacobse said: One thing I think they missed is the ability to select what updates you want to do. All Windows 10 updates are forced as I have seen... I think that while many updates are great to have,... there are some I just don't want.... Like BING or Edge... This sucks because I know one update that broke the ability for SolidWorks to do calculations. It was a non essential update, so if you have it SolidWorks pretty much was useless. Once you uninstalled it, everything was fine.

the log has this. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:571]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\2450d0.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:571]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\4548bc25.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:571]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\30d2dd04.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:571]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\9b12058e.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:586]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\37a812.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:586]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\1787be.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:586]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\4db72bbb.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:586]: Opening existing patch 'C:\Windows\Installer\2ef9d4c5.msp'. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:13:774]: Original patch ==> C:\Users\aciadmin\Downloads\Exchange2007-KB3056710-x64-EN.msp It does find these apparently.. MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {72C048CD-EEE3-4D28-9140-E41E7773EDA5} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.279.3 Order: 0 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {3CB9909C-1466-4F1A-89C7-72B3BBD61D81} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.279.5 Order: 1 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {E9730840-6730-446B-BBAE-1866F024031E} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.297.2 Order: 2 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {C0DBC2AC-7FA8-46AF-A389-179FAB1D8102} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.298.3 Order: 3 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {9750A7B7-545E-473F-B2BA-5D79157CC280} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.327.1 Order: 4 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {193F22C5-6469-44B9-BBC3-067C725B3FE0} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.342.4 Order: 5 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {373F441B-FE35-42C4-8A6B-84BB431C609D} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.348.2 Order: 6 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {CE370EC7-8AF5-43BE-829C-73CEF5598C5D} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.379.2 Order: 7 MSI (c) (B4:78) [17:12:14:993]: PatchGUID: {BF73925F-9C98-444F-9455-8DC63A79B9C2} ResultantVersion: 8.3.83.6 PatchFamily: E12_DAT Sequence: 8.3.417.1 Order: 8 That looksa like it started with update rollup 8 http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/240.exchange-server-and-update-rollup-build-numbers.aspx#D This list precisely matches the Windows update history screen.

So yeah I ran the Disk Cleanup tool on some of them. We have approx 14 servers with less than 10GB left on the C Drive (which is only the windows install, nothing else all 40GB). Anyway the tool sometimes caused them to have less disk space free after it ran. for example an application server went from having 1.8GB free to having 215mb free after running disk cleanup and the superseded cleanup stated here: http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/archive/2011/02/15/how-to-reclaim-space-after-applying-service-pack-1.aspx

@Josh said: @thanksajdotcom Client updates are automatic, however they do not necessarily get pushed at the same time as releases. The Windows update should go out very soon. In the past, we required manual updates. Oh believe me, I remember...