Home Forums Lots of Tech Talk

I am certainly not trying to be a trouble-maker but does it seem to anyone else that there is a whole lot of tech talk going on in the other forums? I think it is very confusing and personally would like to see all the P2P, hardware acceleration, VPN and other stuff kept in the TECH Forum. I think it would be much easier to find things if the other forums were about the nuances of the software and the TECH Forum concentrated on the hardware problems. Granted, it is impossible to completely separate the two but would it be possible?

Had a crappy weekend so grumpier than usual.

Hi Leslie,

This is the Tech Forum, not the Complaint Forum.

Can someone tell me how to run Remote Desktop over VPN? Or tell me if it's more secure than doing that thing where you port forward 3389 to a higher port (or whatever)?

My router has a VPN "function", so I'm thinking I would just need to set that up. Is that correct? Or would doing the port forwarding thing suffice, security-wise?

If you have SBS Essentials, then you have Remote Web Access. In the console you should set up the Remote Access. It should give you a domain name, https://yourname.remotewebaccess.com. That uses an SSL Certificate and will give you access to all of your Win 7/XP/Vista Pro/Business Computers. No other ports besides 443 are necessary. That's about as secure as an online credit card transaction.

This whole war started because I said something. I apologize, Leslie. But it is resolved now.

I had my own domain and transferred it to Godaddy.com to facilitate using it with SBSE (SSL, etc.). It transferred in a matter of hours (they said it could take 5-7 days).

I originally configured my router to port forward HTTP (port 80), HTTPS (port 443), and Remote Desktop (port 3389). Then I removed (stopped port-forwarding) 80 and 3389 and seemed to have lost remote desktop function. I will try again when I am at home.

Thank you for your help, as always.

When you disable port 80, you can't just type yourname.com. You have to manually type HTTPS*://yourname.com. Why didn't you use the free one with SBS-E? They even give you a free SSL Certificate.

What I do is use a link shortner on top since typing https://yourname.remotewebaccess.com can get annoying. It ends up being something like bit.ly/sluthra or something like that for quick access. https://bitly.com/

With SBS Standard you definitely need your own domain name due to Exchange and SharePoint.

I used my own domain because I had it. The free one would have sufficed, and the link shortening thing would have worked and saved me some money. But there is no use crying over spilled milk. Maybe I will upgrade to SBS Standard some day.

Thank you.

https://remote.mydomain.com/

It worked! Thank you :-)

I buy my certificates and domains for 5 years. That way when it's close to expiration, I know it's time to get a new server.

Great.

Leslie,

I tried to do that very thing you mentioned, and I was ridiculed by pretty much everyone on the thread.

Try to ignore the post below you.

In SBS 2008 and 2011 you don't use 3389 and RDC is extremely secure.

Thank you, Bert! And my apologies, Leslie (I was joking around :-)

Bert,
Your post was written in such a way that is was unclear to me exactly what you were trying to say. Now multiple posts have been removed or altered, so it is hard to know. I agree with Leslie that some change is in order.

Sandeep, you wrote something and I disagreed. Some discussion followed. There was no war. What is going on now is something entirely different.

I disagree entirely.

below *yours*, I think it should be.


*you'd* like, I think it should be.

In any case, I am grateful to be here. And I don't feel the need to "don my asbestos suit" (remember that phrase? ha) when communicating on this forum. In retrospect, I feel Bert's "Forum" post was funny. We got off on the wrong foot, so to speak (I was responsible for most of that, and apologize).

I am new here, but hope to make many positive contributions, and perhaps a friend or two.

Actually, I really did not read much of the thread to which you all are referring. I do not understand enough of the tech stuff to keep up with Bert and Sandeep and James. That is why I thought it would be a good idea to concentrate those kinds of conversations in the tech forum. I just get a little annoyed when I open up the General Discussion or Problem forums and find a lot of conversation about the benefits of this set up or that set up. I think the forums have lost their individuality and all of them seem like one kettle of fish anymore. Anyway, JMO.

Hi Leslie and everyone,

Interesting topic.

I personally do not have a problem with all of the technical talk, what is over my head, I just ignore.

But if you are not into it, I certainly see how it can be annoying!

My question is this: Since we are dealing with an ELECTRONIC medical record, are hardware issues so pervasive that they cannot be separated out?

Should there be a "Software only" forum"

Gene

It's going to be difficult sometimes, but not always, to maintain all the tech-talk in the tech-talk section. There are many threads that started off with so-and-so problem but eventually boils down to a server issue, AC issue, etc. that involves taking a computer apart. Therefore, I think some tech-talk "drift" should be expected.

Unfortunately, whenever myself, Indy, or Sandeep get involved, then you can always expect some tech talk. This is what we do for a living, afterall. We are not docs or users of AC so we have a very difficult time looking at things from that point of view. Bert, on the other hand, can bridge that gap fairly easily.

JamesNT

I would echo JamesNT's sentiment.


You have to realize that we are, essentially, being thrust into this magma that is EHR. Most of us did not ask for this. The EHR, like our patients, cannot be simply distilled into hardware and software, general topics or tech topics. It requires a holistic approach.

Or something like that. I hope you understand what I mean. I'm not trying to disagree; just giving my perspective, fwiw.

Well, holistic perhaps in once sense but I for one am quite able to perform a problem-oriented exam. When things get too "techy", send it to the specialists in the TECH forum. Posts can be moved.

Some of the forum threads appear to be taken over by aliens...

The problem, as I see it, is that some "general" posts can receive "techy" replies. And if a moderator were to move those techy replies, he or she would be derailing the thread.

There is no solution, but I understand your complaint.

to *have been* taken over by aliens...

(just helping Bert out, here)

No, Dr. Ryan is correct. Present tense is appropriate.

I don't think so. I am almost never wrong.

Wasn't me. But I will say that there seems be a recent up-tick in "bear-baiting". Perhaps that has morphed into mule-skinner baiting.

http://www.alienware.com/Landings/promotions.aspx?ST=alienware&dgc=ST&cid=246707&lid=4263762&acd=sSghgmBAc,20703376795,901pdb6671


Sorry, couldn't resist

Gene

Really? Are we now in English class? This bit about correcting grammar is annoying. I've enough to worry about in my day than to correct grammar and spelling to make any posts pristine.
not sure you're going to have much luck with the latter making comments like these:
Looking forward to some of those 'positive contributions' you were hoping to make, but now reading some of your posts on other threads, not sure it's going to happen (http://amazingcharts.com/ub/ubbthreads.php/topics/44060/Re_Forums#Post44060).
Your definition of lurking must be interesting.

Bert started it:


I forgave him in advance, but I guess what he wrote still bothers me.

Let's just move on. This is silliness.

>> Randolph, NJ

Are you Devils' fan? Brodeur is looking pretty shaky, even compared to Bryzgalov. What about them apples?

Yeah, I'm a Flyers fan.



Andrechuk

Wow, what a long thread in a short period of time.

I personally look more at the recent posts column than the individual forums, so the fact that it was or wasn't in the tech column was lost on me. (Did I just dangle a participle, no me is not a participle and but it was dangled. Did I just answer my own question, this is all so confusing. Amazing how the mind wanders during the coarse of lunch.)

Anyway, there is a tech side. I find it fascinating and learn a lot from it. Some I know, some I would like to know but don't know the right questions to ask. Much has been appreciated. All is very relevant.

Chris, sometimes we go off on irreverent and irrelevant topics, such as spelling. It's all in good fun.

Actually both are correct - as "having been taken over by aliens" is past tense where "to be taken over by aliens" could be ongoing.

Leslie,

I agree on the forums. Sometimes things go so fast, and I get so busy, I don't think or have time to move them.

Both Wendell and I and half a dozen other people can move them. But, it can sometimes be risky. I have lost a couple in the past.