In an effort to keep this blog more technically focused, also to encourage my kids to write blog entries, all of the trips and travel are moving to a new domains at http://driventoexplore.org/.

Yesterday my littlest one had a dance/recital/show at his preschool.  I took videos on my iPhone of the event, and then promptly spent the better part of last night trying to get my iPhone to act as a USB storage device so I could copy the two movies off.  My phone works fine in iTunes; I can sync music and movies to the phone just fine.  But when I tried to browse it in Windows the iPhone kept showing up as an “iPhone” but refused to load any drivers.

After quite a bit of searching and attempting a number of different technique (including, but not limited to, reinstalling the usbaapl64 driver, removing and reinstalling iTunes, and poking around at the registry), I came across this website: http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/236489-cannot-find-iphone-driver-windows-64-bit.

As it turns out, the MSDN licensed Windows 8.1 I have installed is actually “Windows 8.1 Enterprise N”.  The “N” evidently stands for “Not gonna work properly”.  Unlike the poster in the article (who was using Windows 7), Windows Media Player is already installed.  However the “Media Feature pack”, available at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260410, was not.  I don’t really know what the media feature pack is, why it’s not included in the default Windows install, why iTunes relies on it, or why iTunes doesn’t prompt you to download it, but I removed the existing driver, installed the media feature pack, and then Windows correctly configured my iPhone driver when I plugged the USB cable in.

Thank you Bryan Amundson at Spiceworks, I’m fairly certain I never would have figured this one out on my own.

There’s been a, um, heated discussion at my work about our current server naming standards. Personally I hate our naming scheme. However, a lot of people have become accustomed to it, and a lot of applications use the standards in their configurations, often to automate management. So when the idea of changing it came up again this week, the O.C.D. part of me was anxious to “fix” our naming. Then I realized just what that meant.

For those that can’t read my handwriting (with explanations):

#10. Time consuming to “fix” existing servers (must update files, DNS, monitoring, reboot, etc)
#9. Nobody is every happy (or rather, for every person you please you probably tick someone else off)
#8. This would be irrelevant if everyone used CNAMEs (’nuff said)
#7. Breaks bcfg setup (our config management system bases some configs on the hostname)
#6. Adds time to RH6 upgrade process (rather than an OS upgrade being transparent, now the owners need to update all their configs)
#5. Invariably will end up repeating this again later (this is the 3rd or 4th naming “standard”)
#4. Angers end-users (they need to update their configs, and notify everyone that depends on their apps – would be irrelevant if #8 didn’t apply)
#3. DCops must relabel everything (datacenter guys must label every server)
#2. Value? Makes us $0. Saves us $0.
*DRUMROLL*
#1. Must open 700 WOs for Windows to update DNS (my team does not have DNS rights, so we must open a request and coordinate each change).

If this doesn’t sound like a “make work” project, I don’t know what does.

Bill Smith, editor and publisher of the local “Evanston Now online newspaper and I had lengthy discussion today. It started when I commented on his article entitled Library Board Votes To Levy Own Tax.

My comment was summarily deleted because his interpretation of the statue that I cited differed from mine. When I pointed out that he was removing comments trying to start a civilized and informed discussion, he instead replied with a smug retort.

Incidentally, my original comment simply linked to the (quite lengthy) Illinois Local Library Act, and questioned how the unelected library board could decide to levy taxes when the act clearly stated that only the “corporate authorities” (the City Council) could do so, and only via voter referendum.

As Mr. Smith owns and operates the Evanston Now website, he’s free to remove any comments from his website he deems (un)fit, even if doing so is in direct conflict of his own Terms. Of course, I’m free to point out his journalism double-standard here.

Incidentally, I would have very much liked for another citizen “who can read” to “point out to [me] in public what [I was] unable to find in the statute”. After all, my complaint about the Library Board is not that there is a tax to pay for the library (though $366/year seems awfully steep), but that the Library Board has suddenly deemed itself a taxing authority.

What follows is my e-mail discussion with Mr. Smith:

>On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:44 AM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Geoff,
>>>
>>> I've pulled your comments about the library funding dispute because you've
>>> missed the key provision of the statute, from the library board's
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>> The statute says at (75 ILCS 5/3-5) that the library board of trustees
>>> gets to specify the amount that the corporate authorities (the city council)
>>> "shall" levy -- the implication being that the city council has no
>>> discretion in the matter -- it must levy whatever the library board tells it
>>> to (within the caps set by the statute).
>>>
>>> Evanston for many years has used a different process -- in which the City
>>> Council determines what the library's budget will be and funds that amount
>>> out of the general fund -- not from a separate library fund.
>>>
>>> The last time the library board tried to flex its muscles on the issue a
>>> couple decades ago, the then city attorney persuaded them to back down by
>>> threatening to take them to court.
>>>
>>> If you'd like to discuss this further, drop me a note at
>>> bill@evanstonnow.com or give me a call at 847-733-7526.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bill Smith


On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Geoff Silver  wrote:
>> You guys moderate civilized comments by removing them?  Seriously?
>> SERIOUSLY?
>>
>> If you're only going to allow comments which are pro-Evanston than what's
>> the point of allowing comment at all?  You disagree with my interpretation
>> and so my comment is removed?
>>
>> Wow, nice yellow journalism there.


On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Bill Smith  wrote:
>
>Excuse me ... I was trying to save you the embarrassment of having
>someone who can read point out to you in public what you were unable
>to find in the statute.
>
>I didn't realize you'd rather be publicly embarrassed. I'll make a
>note of that for next time.
>
>--
>Bill Smith
>Publisher
>Evanston Now
>bill@evanstonnow.com
>847-733-7526


On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Geoff Silver  wrote:

No need.  Any website which leaves comments like "The INTERNET and
e-books has replaced librarys. Those that still use the library should
pay for it! The taxes in this city have almost made it unliveable to
want to live here as it is. Give us another reason to sell and move!"
yet summarily "moderates" (removes) comments like "here's a link to
the precise documents" isn't worth the screen it's printed on.  You
can keep your moderation - I'd rather get my news from an unbiased
and trustworthy source.

Or maybe ‘Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology…Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster.’

All told it took about 48 hours to complete (no, not straight through), but we’re now running 64-bit Ubuntu 9.10 on a new AMD Athlon II 620 (quad 2.6GHz core).  That should make wordpress super fast! <sarcasm intended>.