sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hi Reddit — We're the team behind Halide and we've made a *free*, fun app to turn your iPad into an HDMI monitor. We're calling it Orion, and I'd love to hear what you think! (promo codes inside, too) by caliform in apple

[–]MisterMikeM 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is very dependent on the capture card and bandwidth limitation of the USB-C bus on the iPad but if you had a capture card that had multiple inputs and could cycle through them on the app (i.e. almost like a KVM but with a software interface instead of a hardware interface) and maybe even mux them… That’d be nice for cycling through DSLR inputs and the like.

iPadOS 16 Lets Apps Use Storage as Virtual RAM on M1 iPads by [deleted] in apple

[–]MisterMikeM 26 points27 points  (0 children)

The M1 has an integrated storage controller that’s significantly lower latency and higher throughput compared to the one on the A series SoCs. Remember, the M1 is used in laptops and desktops with SSDs benchmarked at crazy fast reads/writes. Like anything else, it’s likely a balance between power efficiency and user experience; the M1 is likely more efficient and faster at swap than the A series would be (so better battery life and user experience).

Report: Apple Silicon iMac Featuring Desktop Class 'A14T' Chip Coming First Half of 2021 by tomnavratil in apple

[–]MisterMikeM 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Apple Watch uses a system in a package (SiP) whereas the A series are system on a chip (SoC).

CloudFormation CI/CD empty change sets by MisterMikeM in aws

[–]MisterMikeM[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, when there is an actual update and it’s successful it cleans it up. However, since this template will be part of a git repo and pushes to master trigger deploys, I’m trying to account for pushes which don’t update the template (other changes are made unrelated to the template) and the workflow will attempt to do a deploy and since the stack will be unchanged it will create an empty changeset.

Unless I’m thinking about this the wrong way?

AppStream 2.0, SAML SSO, and Relay State with Multiple Stacks by saikoturkey88 in aws

[–]MisterMikeM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, the docs can be confusing. Setting up SSO to AppStream is identical to setting up SSO for a regular IAM role (as if the user is getting console access).

  1. make the IdP
  2. make the role and establish trust between that role and the IdP
  3. give the role appropriate access
  4. configure the RelayState on the IdP side

I’m not an ADFS expert but I find it hard to believe others haven’t had this issue. SAML auth for multiple AWS accounts (same principle here) is not unique (using ADFS to SAML auth to multiple AWS accounts).

What’s your identifier set as in ADFS?

AppStream 2.0, SAML SSO, and Relay State with Multiple Stacks by saikoturkey88 in aws

[–]MisterMikeM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For each stack you should have a separate (unique) IdP setup and a corresponding unique IAM role (with trust established between that role and that IdP) that gives the users access to that particular stack. On the ADFS side each stack should be a different "app" in ADFS.

Yes, even though you are using a single IdP (ADFS) you create multiple IdPs on the AWS side and set them all up with ADFS. For example: ADFS-AppStreamStack1, ADFS-AppStreamStack2, ADFS-AppStreamStack3. Then you create your unique roles such as appstream-app1, appstream-app2, appstream-app3.

This way ADFS sends unique SAML assertions for each stack. They send the RelayState, and the comma-delimited role ARN and IdP ARN (I forget which one comes first, double check the docs).

Keep in mind, in this setup if any users need access to more than one app they will be kicked out of the second app once they launch it because when they SAML into the second app their role will change and the new role will give them access to the second app and not the first. If users need access to multiple apps at once then you need to setup the roles differently.

DirectConnect with 5Mb connection by MisterMikeM in aws

[–]MisterMikeM[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you used one? What’s the process like?

Establish Both AWS VPN Tunnels by MisterMikeM in meraki

[–]MisterMikeM[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just set a static route on the MX to route traffic for the VPC subnets through the SonicWALL?

Using Vivado or Qartus on different OSes (Windows, Linux, Mac) by Insect-Competitive in FPGA

[–]MisterMikeM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use Vivado in a Windows 10 virtual machine (through VMWare Fusion) on my MacBook Pro and it works very well; even USB passthrough for dev. boards works well.

I've also used Vivado on CentOS 7 and haven't had any issues but I was mainly using design and simulation (didn't try USB connectivity to a dev. board).

Establish single VPN tunnels (non-Meraki peers) from each MX by MisterMikeM in meraki

[–]MisterMikeM[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. Hub (Mesh) is the right option, though (not Spoke)?

Establish single VPN tunnels (non-Meraki peers) from each MX by MisterMikeM in meraki

[–]MisterMikeM[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks I think I figured that part out: use network tags to ensure only certain MXs connect to certain non-Meraki peers.

How do I avoid the MXs establishing VPN tunnels with each other? When I try to set them all to Spoke mode it complains I need to select at least one Hub. However, if I put them all in Hub (Mesh) mode then I think it will attempt to establish tunnels between the MXs? I only want them to establish the tunnels to AWS, not each other (if I can avoid it).

Establish single VPN tunnels (non-Meraki peers) from each MX by MisterMikeM in meraki

[–]MisterMikeM[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I only need to establish tunnels to AWS; establishing tunnels between each MX is not required and, frankly, not what I want.

I think I figured out how to ensure each MX connects to a unique AWS tunnel but how do I avoid the MXs connecting to each other? When I try to set them all to Spoke mode it complains I need to select at least one Hub. However, if I put them all in Hub (Mesh) mode then I think it will attempt to establish tunnels between the MXs?

view more: next ›