1. Please start a new unique thread, and not reply-to (aka hijack) an existing one.
2. Please don't include political messages in your signature. This is a large list, and will only attract conflict to or avoidance of your posts. 3. In simplest terms: If you can establish clear line of site between the points, you simply need two directional antennas and repeating/bridging devices with enough power to broadcast over that distance. If its truly 100yds with CLoS, you may be able to use a high-end CoTS device (repeater between $200-300 not including antennas). I've purchased similar products at Fry's for residential installs. Otherwise, my short-range distance experience is with Cisco Aironet bridges for commercial.. -- Espi On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM, John Bonner <[email protected]> wrote: > Good Afternoon > Full Disclosure: I am a software engineer so I understand generally this > field but I am not as well versed in the particulars as you guys are. > > > A friend who owns a very large dairy has broadband coming into one > building and would like to beam wireless to their house across the street > ~100 yards away. I was looking for advice as well as what equipment / where > to buy. It *seems* to me this is not needing a complex solution. They will > not be uploading much just downloading. > > So any advice would be greatly appreciated > JB > > *Homeschooled kids don’t lack socialization . . . but socialism.* > *Homeschooling represents a microcosm of traditional Americana and a > rebuke of government meddling. Hence liberals hate it.* > Source: > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2013/01/22/want-to-tell-the-state-to-stick-it-homeschool-your-kids/ > > > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 13:58:47 -0500 > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] AD groups - Global, or Universal? > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Universal is typically used more for inter-forest ACL's IIRC. Reason #1 I > can think of for Global vs. Uni is your GC's have to replicate any change > to Uni group membership. > > This probably explains it better than I did: > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231273 > > That said for your size, and the administrative effort to make the change > it's probably not worth it. > > > - WJR > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:09 PM, David Lum <[email protected]> wrote: > > I seem to think it was from this list that helped me decide to no use > Global groups in AD but I have an SE pointing me to MS articles and it > looks like I should be using Global instead on Universal, – currently I use > Domain local and Universal groups, but we’re pretty small (600-users) and > have two forests, but the majority of the accesses I am concerned about are > users from DOMAIN1 getting access to local resources (file shares and > servers) in DOMAIN1.**** > > ** ** > > Is there a compelling reason to use Global vs. Universal? Somehow I was > thinking global as much for backward-compatibility, but am not finding > anything online saying as much.**** > > *David Lum* > Sr. Systems Engineer // NWEATM > Office 503.548.5229 //* *Cell (voice/text) 503.267.9764**** > > ** ** > > >
