--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Leeds Hack Space" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leeds-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leeds-hack-spa...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Leeds Hack Space" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leeds-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leeds-hack-spa...@googlegroups.com.
There appears to be a clear need for a 'lab' type setup for servers and virtual machines, to me this should be somewhat seperate to a simple, well documented infrastructure.
Well volunteered Samwise, please present your project plan at your earliest convenience.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Leeds Hack Space" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leeds-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Depending on the timescales needed I'd be happy to lead, but obviously not for a couple of weeks (as I'm still laid up in a Manchester hospital).
If we currently have working Internet then future expansion seems less time critical though it would be nice for it to be done properly :)
> Is there any traction on this?Not to my knowledge.
> Does a leader need to be appointed?If that's how the directors want it to work, yes.> We wouldn't want to replicate the tension or invoke The Spooky Action at a Distance Anti-Pattern on this infrastructure.Communication is good.It could start with an inventory of hardware we're using. Can meet up to discuss if you like. At present it seems to be me, you and Nav that have interest in sorting parts of this.Infrastructure actions/decisions can wait until server admins are back, such as Martyn.
On Thursday, 20 October 2016 15:25:33 UTC+1, Samwise Wilson wrote:Is there any traction on this? Does a leader need to be appointed? We wouldn't want to replicate the tension or invoke The Spooky Action at a Distance Anti-Pattern on this infrastructure.
On Thursday, 29 September 2016 22:01:31 UTC+1, Matt C wrote:There appears to be a clear need for a 'lab' type setup for servers and virtual machines, to me this should be somewhat seperate to a simple, well documented infrastructure.
I really agree with this statement particularly on the simple well documented infrastructure!
--
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leeds-hack-spa...@googlegroups.com.
The Cisco access points are capable of broadcasting multiple SSIDs - we could potentially leave the old network name and password and password for legacy devices and start again for the new - LHS-3.0 for the new network with a definite non-sweary password?
That said, a) off the top of my head I don't know if they'll drop multiple SSIDs onto the same vlan happily and b) are we going to want different networks with different levels of access (eg members vs guests, people vs "embedded").
There's a umber of ways we could play this, sadly I've been out of the loop too long to just make unilateral decisions without being there :)
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leeds-hack-space+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.