Online dating sites have become quite popular over the past ten years.  I’ve tried Match.com primarily, and that is all I will comment on here.

There is a bit of deception in the way Match.com is designed, and it appears to be deliberate.  I’m surprised there hasn’t been a reaction by the user community or consumer protection organizations.

Although Match.com may rightfully claim to have millions of members, how many are real members – with full use of the service.  One can log in and search through millions of “profiles”, many of which have photos.  If a membership is purchased, one can even send an email to his/her target of desire.  But, chances are the email doesn’t make it to its intended destination.

How can that be?  Well, only paying members can read and respond to emails sent to them through Match.com.  When viewing a profile, there is no indication of whether the individual is a paying member.  So, one may shoot cupid’s arrow at another Match.com user, but chances are it will miss.  According to this article, only one in twenty members of dating sites are paying members.  If that is true, on average one would have to send twenty emails just to have the possibility of a response.

Is this deliberate?  I can only hypothesis, but my guess is that it is.  It is a way for Match.com to attract members.  Specifically, it is a way for Match.com to turn non-paying members to paying members.

Does this cross the line?  I believe it does.

Are members aware of the difference between a non-paying membership and a paying membership?  The site explicitly describes the benefits of a paid membership.  It becomes obvious after joining anyway.  The site won’t let you send or read emails, until you pay to become a member.  There is no real deception here.

The deception is for paying members who attempt to contact others through the site.  There is no way to know if the member being written to will be able to receive the email and respond. Why write an email if there is little chance of a response.  So paying members may be wasting much of there time, all in the effort of having Match.com attract paying customers.  Some may call this a good business model. I call it deception.

Addressing this problem is quite simple.  When displaying profiles, Match.com shows whether the user has the capability to respond.  It would only be fair to its paying members.

Smooth jazz seems to get no respect.  It is often described as “bland”.   However, it attracts some of the best musicians – many studio musicians.  Here is a list of some of my current favorites.  Obviously, I don’t think of these as bland.  I think they really move.  Maybe they will convice you.

Artist: Norman Brown (guitar)
Album: Stay With Me
Song: Let’s Take A Ride
Comment: Norman is a top guitarist, with an arsenal of great smooth jazz tunes on CD

Artist: Fattburger (band)
Album: Sizzlin’
Song: Sizzlin‘
Comment: These guys have been around forever and there is a reason for that.

Artist: Eric Merienthal (sax)
Album: Just Around The Corner
Song: Blue Water
Comment: Another moving tune from Marienthal

Artist: Chuck Loeb (guitar)
Album: All There Is
Song: Sarao
Comment: Not many artists can sound as good (or better) live.  Chuck is one.

Artist: Marc Antoine (guitar)
Album: Cruizin’
Song: On The Strip
Comment: Smooth jazz with a little Latin/Spanish influence

Artist: Steve Cole (sax)
Album: NY LA
Song: Everyday
Comment: If his music doesn’t make your want to move, you must be nailed down.  Steve, don’t forget to come back to Scullers soon.

Artist: Joyce Cooling
Album: This Girl’s Go To Play
Song: Expression
Comment: I’ve recently discovered Joyce Cooling.  Playful sounding.

Artist: George Benson (guitar)
Album: Weekend in L.A.
Song: California P.M. (recorded live, in concert)
Comment: Great jazz artist in his own right.  Never afraid to have fun with music.  There is nobody better.  Better live than recorded.

There are many misconceptions about Software As A Service (SaaS).  Many of those misconceptions come forth from the investment and venture capital community.  While SaaS is not the answer to every problem, it is a sound solution in may instances and offers many advantages to entrepreneurs.

Investors in technology and software often times have an uneasy feeling about SaaS products.  This article describes many common concerns and misconceptions investors have regarding SaaS.  The perspective is largely from that of the investor and venture capitalist.  Typical objections are:

- SaaS is an unproven business model.  The article suggestions that “SaaS is unlike any business model they’ve [VCs] analyzed”.

- SaaS products require larger initial investment.  The implication is that the perpetual software license brings in more revenue. There may also be greater initial outlay in server infrastructure for SaaS.

- Funding for a SaaS may be more difficult to come by because venture capitalists are wary of SaaS.

These misconceptions will be addressed below.  In the process, some benefits of SaaS will arise as well as possible reasons why large investors don’t find SaaS appealing.  Some additional benefits will also be presented.

The fact that the VC community does not feel comfortable with SaaS is largely irrelevant to the viability of SaaS.  The VC community (including angel investors) has largely been mutually exclusive with innovation and risk for the past decade.  If VCs have little understanding of SaaS, then it is due to their own negligence.  Service to consumers has been in existence since the milk man and diaper service, over fifty years ago.  Services provided to businesses have been around even longer, as lawyers, accountants, insurance, internet/broadband, telecommunications, and more have been provided as services for years.

There have also been some very successful applications provided as a service.  One of the most successful is Salesforce.  Smaller solutions such as Basecamp, a project management tool have thrived.  Such applications have been widely accepted by business.  One tremendous benefit is that they bring capabilities to small business, that only large businesses could afford at one time.

Perhaps the reason SaaS is not appealing to VCs and other large investors is because it lessens the need for their “services” and provides more leverage to the entrepreneur.  How?  Let’s address the next misconception and come back to this.

Many investors believe the perpetual software license is more financially feasible.  The case here is that charging an initial fee for software is better than a recurring fee as the service is used.  There are two problems with this thinking.  How do software companies continue to improve there product(s) after the initial purchase?  They’ve received the large initial payment, which will likely spent shortly thereafter.   To address this, many software companies charge “maintenance fees”.  Typically these fees are 15% to 20% of the initial license fee, on an annual basis.

How is this different from software as a service?  It isn’t.  The customer is paying a fee (called a maintenance fee) as long as they wish to use the software.  In essence, the distribution (ratio) of the initial fee and the maintenance fee are different between perpetual license and SaaS.

This “perpetual” model has led to some harsh feelings between businesses and  software vendors over the years.  Businesses questioned why they needed to pay anything after the initial purchase.  Initially maintenance fees were low.  Just five years ago they were in the 10% to 15% range.

Why is SaaS better than the perpetual software pricing model:
1) SaaS allows more flexibility (charge per user, per use, per output, etc).  In the end, customers feel they are getting better value.
2) SaaS removes the large initial cost of perpetual licensing, which can in many cases remove a barrier to entry, especially to smaller companies.
3) Recurring payments of SaaS allow the vendor to continually investment in improving the product.

Another objection to SaaS is that there is a greater initial cost in setting up (hardware/software) infrastructure.  That is also another misconception.  Hardware, software, broadband, and hosting costs have dropped dramatically over the years.  Virtualization has also been a significant contribution to lower infrastructure costs.

But the biggest development has largely gone unnoticed.  It is not surprising that the investment community is in the dark.  Application services are currently being offered that may drastically change the landscape of computing, such as Amazon’s EC2 and Google’s App Engine (there are others too).  While in their infancy, these application engines provide for complete web application and web service environments (often referred to as Cloud Computing), using the same infrastructure that Amazon’s and Google’s own applications run on!  Scalability and redundancy, which are typically quite costly to achieve for a new venture, are built in to these services.  Costs are also very reasonable and based on usage.  In effect, a small, growing venture can build its application on the same platform as Amazon and Google, while costs scale with revenue.

And the last objection to SaaS is that funding may be difficult to come by, particularly via venture capitalists.  This has largely been addressed.  Due to low barrier to entry and affordable infrastructure,  the need for VC is lessened.  And that may be the real reason why the VC community doesn’t particularly care for SaaS.

SaaS opens up greater opportunity to the entrepreneur.  It minimizes the need for large capital outlay – and the dependency on outside investment.  It allows more value to be developed in the early stages and to prove a concept with little risk.  As the aforementioned article discusses, other options, such as partnerships or having software development costs shared with early customers are good options.  All of which lessen or remove the dependency on the VC community.

So, while some may perceive SaaS to be untested or unappealing, consider the source of those negative reports.  Innovation is a quality of the entrepreneur not the investor.  Investors may have alterior motives.  SaaS provides the enterpreneur with more leverage and opportunity.  With SaaS the success is based more on the idea, commitment, and persistence – and less on the financing.

I can’t help feeling like America will miss out on something special. Tonight, Senator Obama defeated Senator McCain for president of the United States. McCain is an exceptional man, one that doesn’t come along very often, particularly in politics. He will not be president.

McCain has demonstrated some unique abilities and qualities over a lengthy period of time. He has offered his life in service for his country. He has shown an ability to work through differences, by working both sides of the political aisle in Congress. He has proven himself to be an honorable man with integrity and that can not be questioned. Unfortunately, such a man won’t lead the country.

My feelings are more a reflection on McCain as opposed to Obama. I have no doubt that Obama is a decent man. Obama seemed to be more charismatic during the campaign and also also seemed to represent “change”. Those are what seemed to appeal to the American public.

It is ironic that McCain’s concession speech is such an excellent demonstration of his ability to lead. McCain shows a respect to those who are different and to those with differing opinions. He shows that his country comes first. He shows that there is a point where one can cross the line in politics and he knows where to draw the line – and keeps his followers inline. His honor and integrity are clearly evident.

What does the next four years hold? Nobody knows, but I hope to follow McCain’s lead and support the new president. To quote McCain, “I wish godspeed” to our new president.

My fellow Americans, please don’t vote in the 2008 presidential election. You have already made a mess of things. You are not in a good state of mind. At this point I have no confidence in your being able to make any type of reasonable decision.

First, you entered into faulty mortgage agreements. The mortgages were obviously flawed, yet you signed them – in large numbers. It is truly disappointing that you can not even manage or understand your own finances. The only way those mortgages could have worked is if your home increased in value by 10+% each year. You are either greedy or stupid.

But that is not the worst of it. When your mortgage failed, you blamed someone else – the bank, the lenders, the government. And what really is upsetting is that many of us are being affected by your foolhardiness. The economy is in a downturn because of your inability to manage and understand your personal finances. Many of us saw these loans as flawed and didn’t participate, yet we are now affected by the economic downturn.

Unfortunately, it gets even worse. The turmoil you’ve created has caused you to lose your sanity. You go around ranting and raving and doling out blame. The government is at fault. The Republicans are at fault. The Bush administration is at fault. There need to be regulations that prevent people from doing stupid things with their money – blah, blah, blah. You want those who were in office while you acted poorly to be voted out.

And here is where it gets scary. Since you blame the government for your idiocy, you want to change it simply for the sake of change. You want to put someone in the highest office who has virtually no experience. He was first elected to the Senate in 2004. Yet he has spent half his time there campaigning for president. He tells you things you want to hear, including playing the blame game. How is someone with no experience at the national and world level going to fix things? It seems like such an individual is likely to make an entirely new set of mistakes – on top of the problems that already exist. How can you trust someone who leverages your anger for a vote?

Please, my fellow Americans, don’t vote. If you can’t manage your own finances what does that say about your ability to make significant decisions. If you are bitter about the economy, wait until your anger subsides before doing something else that is stupid – 2012 is just around the corner.

The financial crisis that is gripping the United State and the world had prompted me to think about the state of American Empire. Throughout history, all empires have eventually fallen – Greeks, Romans, Spanish, etc. What is the state of the American Empire? I don’t think it is on the rise, but perhaps just past its peak, just on the downfall.

I am not sure what has been the cause of the downturn of prior empires. In the case of the American Empire, I feel Americans may have gotten “soft”. I question that the principals, work ethic, persistence, and ingenuity may not be there like they once were.

One word that comes to mind is “entitlement”. Americans seem to have a sense of entitlement. They feel entitled to own a home, they feel entitled that their homes increase in value by double digit percentages each year, they feel entitled to own their own transportation (regardless of its effects on the environment), they feel entitled to have their nest eggs grow each year, they feel entitled to afford $4 for a cup of coffee.

Opportunity seems to have been replaced with entitlement. Given that one works hard, is persistent, is innovative, and also has some luck, one can achieve through opportunity. Achievement can then breed entitlement. In today’s society, opportunity seems to be a bystander- along with its ingredients and implications – and entitlement is assumed.

So, what is next? Maybe the American empire can extend or reinvigorate itself. Being a melting pot, perhaps immigrants to this country can sustain the American spirit. Or, maybe the American Empire with be the last empire as we know it. With globalization is there really the impetus for one country to represent a dominance?

Related Links: http://www.newsweek.com/id/166821

How did the U.S. economy get into this mess? Well, I think one man is largely responsible. I call him Oz.

Nearly ten years ago the dotcom bubble occurred. This was an aberration. Large numbers of investors, many of which could be called speculators, were able to affect the economy by investing in new Internet companies. Tremendous amounts of money were poured into technology businesses. The surge drove the stock market up and employment down. Salaries soared in the technology sector. There was a shortage of talent. People who knew nothing about the Internet or software were switching careers. All was good in the land of technology.

Then reality hit and the bubble burst. New technology companies closed their doors – usually quickly. Unemployment increased. Stock markets tumbled. The bubble was so big, the U.S. and global economies felt the effects.

To make up for this financial tailspin, Oz stepped in. He stood in front of his economy machine, with its dozens and dozens of switches, buttons, and levers. He thought he knew how all those controls operated and inter-related. There he was making adjustments moving the various switches. Oz was going to fix things. Later on Oz admitted “he didn’t get it”.

That is when the damage was done. Oz lowered interest rates drastically and kept them there. He knowingly created a housing boom to curtail the dotcom fallout. This was a way to avoid the financial downturn from the technology sector. He panicked, made unnatural adjustments, and let them run their course. He had no real understanding of the side effects of his actions.

In actuality, Oz knowingly substituted a housing bubble for a technology bubble, to avoid a downturn. As the technology sector contracted, the financial sector boomed. This time the boom was fueled by Oz’s polices at the Federal Reserve. The low interest rates lured more speculators. Mortgage companies were popping up every where. They were offering loans backed by investors (speculators) – not banks. Banks, which traditionally backed loans, now offered loans backed by investment banks, who thought they could make money via new lending products based on low interest rates. Housing prices skyrocketed. With these new loans everyone one could own a home. All was well the American dream.

It turns out the cure was worse than the disease. Oz created a housing boom that was an even bigger aberration. The new financial products were unrealistic. Reality hit again. Foreclosures increased. The housing market ground to a halt. Markets plummeted. Oz brought some of the largest investment banks in the country to their knees, with several going out of business.

What was Alan Greenspan thinking? I am not sure, but I believe one conclusion can be drawn. The economy is complicated – too complicated to try to control. No one man can understand it, nor control it. To think so is foolhardy and to try makes one a fool. Here is a case where one foolish man created an economic disaster almost single handedly.

There is a push to revamp the SBIR/STTR system. One aspect of the change is to allow for private investors, angels and venture capitalists, to have more leverage. Bad idea.

SBIR (as the name implies) was intended for small businesses. Large businesses, such Raytheon and Boeing, already have relationships with the government. SBIR was intended to provide a venue for small entities to interact with the government and share in opportunities.

Today (2007-2008), venture capitalists, and even angels, no longer represent small businesses. Funding has moved upstream – toward bigger opportunities, leaving a void for businesses. To give VCs any significant say in how SBIR/STTR money is distributed would be shutting down one of the few potential sources of funding (< $1M) to innovative companies.

SBIR/STTR represents a choice.

- SBIRs can be an alternative to private investment. Why eliminate a viable alternative for funding. Why shut down an alternative to angels and VCs.

- SBIR can represent a way for small companies to bootstrap. A small company can retain more value/equity while bootstrapping and developing initial technology. SBIR is free money, in terms of equity.

- SBIR offers opportunities based on different criteria than VCs. Who is to say VC-think is the only way. There are plenty of worthy projects that would not receive funding (especially with the move upstream), from VCs.

The current system works fine. It does not preclude the involvement of VCs – even when VCs own more than 50%. Keep in mind:

- SBIR money is to be used primarily for development (R&D).

- SBIR is a three phase protocol. Phase 1 is feasibility and planning, phase 2 is build out of working prototype, and phase 3 is commercialization.

- SBIR phase 2 funding generally has a maximum of $1M.

This is perfect, particularly in today’s funding market. Angels and VCs are primarily interested in less risky propositions that have very large, Google-like potential (lol). They want to see working products before investing. SBIR provides an opportunity for small companies to build working prototypes at a funding level angels and VCs have abandoned. And, there is nothing to prevent private investor involvement after phase 2.

In fact, having any angel/VC participation in SBIR/STTR programs is just bad. It will have the affect of diminishing the chances for legitimate small businesses to receive funding. VCs are have fairly sophisticated machinery in place in starting up companies. Once SBIR/STTR programs become available to them, they will simply incorporate those programs into that process, giving them an unfair advantage over the true intended recipients of the grants.

I was surprised to learn that an Angel/VC group is behind the push to elbow their way in to the SBIR/STTR program. You can see that this group is fairly opinionated. They believe they define what “promising” means when evaluating new companies and ideas. This is exactly why an alternative, like the SBIR/STTR is needed.

Personally, I would like to see angels and VCs start acting entrepreneurial. When I hear these types of investors talk, they conjure the vision of the high school student who is on the baseball team. As a baseball player, he is rather average, but has grandiose visions of being A-Rod. I have heard countless angels who have a couple hundred thousand to invest, but only in billion dollar opportunities. Pleeeeease, be real.

The SBIR/STTR program is not perfect. But allowing angels/VCs to be involved is a wrong direction. Some simple improvements would be: build awareness of the program, streamline the application process, faster turnaround on applications, and provide a division to fund more commercial opportunities (non-defense).

I’ve had my iPhone 3G for a week now. I’ve avoided “smart phones”, instead opting for the traditional flip phone models. My main use of a cell phone has been for voice calls and an occasional text message. So, this posting may be from the viewpoint of a novice smart phone user.

My main motivation in purchasing an iPhone was to reduce the things I carry around with me. I typically carry my keys, wallet, cell phone, and iPod. With the cell phone and music player combined, I am lighter. on my feet. There was one additional need and that was an ability to browse the web. But I didn’t want to be a second class citizen on the web. I wanted to be able to view full web sites and have them look good. Mobile versions of sites were not appealing to me.

At this point, I can say that I am very satisfied with the iPhone. I’ve heard people talk about the “killer app” for mobile devices. I think the iPhone may be it, although I would call it the killer hardware platform.

As a phone it is better than I thought. I almost always use the speaker and had low expectations for the iPhone. Its speakerphone is better than expected. Sound quality is better than the last few cell phones I’ve had. My only wish is that the maximum speaker volume is not loud enough at times. One nifty feature about the phone is its ability to do other things while on a call. I’ve sent email and text messages while on a call.

The iPhone seems to work well as an iPod too. I have two wishes here. First, I’d like an iPhone 3G with more memory. With over 2000 songs and plenty of podcasts, I am nearly out of memory. Fortunately iTunes lets you select what can be downloaded into the phone. Second, I wish iTunes would do a better job of finding the album covers. There is at least one web site that does this, but it is time consuming.

The iPhone is excellent at browsing the web. I have purposely avoided smart phones because I wanted a real web experience. I did not wanted to be limited mobile versions of web sites. Safari provides as good an experience as one can have on a screen so small. The pinching actions allow you to zoom into portions of a web site and moving around is pretty easy. Having multiple browser windows open at once and switching between them is also well thought out.

Just before purchasing the iPhone 3G I had second thoughts based on reports of poor battery life. I believe the battery life is pretty good. Because the device is so capable, I use it a lot more and thus the battery drains more quickly. I probably use the iPhone for two plus hours a day through a combination of calls, text messaging, web surfing and iPod’ing. The battery has not run down on me and I think I could get at least 3 hours of usage from it. This is more than I could get out of my prior cell phones, which I used simply for calls. Sure, I want more battery life, but it is pretty darn good as is.

I would not use an iPhone for activities requiring a lot of typing. Typing on the iPhone or any small device is just to frustrating for me. Having said that, the iPhone is perfect for reading and keeping up to date. In a pinch, the ability to type large amounts of text is there. I think one of the old pen devices, used on the Palms, would make things a lot easier – at least for me.

There are some things that bug me about the phone:

- None of my old accessories work.
- A docking station should be included.
- More volume on the speakerphone.
- I have trouble typing.

Some things that I really like:

- The IMAP/POP3 client is really great.
- Text messaging interface is great. It shows entire conversations.
- Cro-Mag – this game is really fun and uses the accelerometer.

Overall, I think the iPhone is great. It does a great job at the three things I really need: cell phone with speaker, iPod, and web surfing.

I’m a technology person, software engineer actually, for a small business. We ran Windows NT up until recently. The need to upgrade was based more on our old hardware. In any case, I thought I would share my experience in hopes of helping others in a similar situation.

The goal was to run Windows 2003 Server on our LAN to offer file sharing, printer sharing, and authentication (for logging in from any PC) for a small number of PCs in our office. Our LAN is behind a DSL router and a LinkSys router (see image below). The LinkSys router provides NAT, so all PCs connected to it share one IP address.

We also used Windows 2003’s DHCP and DNS and will explain why. Note that this server was not used to provide email (Exchange) or any web services. VPN access was provided, on a separate server, and that will be discussed.

I experimented with installing Windows 2003 Server several times. So I became familar with many options, although I did not try every thing possible. At first it didn’t seem very easy to set things up. But after I was successful, I think the installation is actually easier than the documentation and wizards indicate.

I started with the goal of moving our NT Domain to an Active Directory based domain. There was a new server for the new domain, so the old domain was kept running. Users were moved, one by one, to the new domain – after the new domain was setup.

Domain Controller

The first thing to note is that the Manage Your Server tool is quite useful. After installing Windows 2003 (and the service packs), you are greeted with a Manage Your Server application when you log in. Up to this point, Windows 2003 is running, but no services (called “roles”) have been installed. I installed everything from this tool. In some cases I would uninstall (remove a role) and then reinstall to try again. The tools also indicates when prerequiste services are needed and offers to install them.

NOTE: Manage Your Server provides an option to setup a server in typical fasion. I didn’t try this. It may work well, in which case the following description may be rendered less useful. I had a pretty good idea of what we needed and wanted to install just the required components.

The DNS Server should be the first thing installed. When trying to install some other services (like Active Directory) a notification that DNS is required appears. DNS is used to identify PCs on your LAN. With Windows NT, WINS performed some of this function (note there is a WINS server in Windows 2003, but DNS is really required). For a small organization DNS can be setup to provide name resolution for internal resources. For external resources (ex. microsoft.com) DNS defers to the ISP’s DNS. After installing DNS, the only thing really needed is to setup: the forwarders. These tell DNS where your ISP’s DNS servers are so that all external lookups can be performed there (see image).

Next, DHCP was installed. It is recommended to use Windows 2003’s DHCP instead of the router’s DHCP. I turned off the LinkSys router’s DHCP.

The install is pretty straight forward. But I couldn’t get client PCs to pickup some of the typical settings, such as default gateway (from the router) and WINS server. That is when I realized these are provided by the DHCP server. These items needed to be added to DHCP’s Server Options (see image).

After that, the clients worked. The network for each client was configured to work by obtaiining their address and DNS from DHCP.

Now when a client started up, it uses the Windows 2003 Server’s DHCP to get an IP address, default gateway (from the router), and IP address of our DNS server. NOTE: The server we are setting up requires a static IP address on the local LAN and that address is used for DNS and WINS servers.

Now Active Directory was installed then file sharing and print sharing. Some of those items require DNS, which was already installed. I also installed WINS in the end.

At this point I copied files over from the old domain server to the new, set up sharing and security on each user’s folder, and created new users in Active Directory. Then I changed the domain on each PC to the new domain.

VPN and RRAS

Finally, we wanted VPN access to our LAN. This is where most of the problems arose. At first, I didn’t want to dedicate an entire server to VPN, referred to as RRAS. So I installed it on the domain controller along with a second NIC, which is required. It never did work. The network requirements of a domain controller conflict with that of RRAS, and that is as technical as I will get.

Intead an old PC (866MHz) was used for the RRAS server. The second network card was installed in it. From that point on, the RRAS installation gets you close. The Manage You Server tools installed RRAS. But there were a couple of trickty things.

Basically, think of the RRAS server as another member of the internal LAN. It is a member of the domain, and must join the domain.

Also, how are the two network cards configured? The internal LAN connection needs a static IP on the internal LAN. Setup the network settings as you wou BUT, leave the default gateway blank. It turns out that only one default gateway can be allowed on a PC. The default gateway settiing from the external NIC will be used. The external connection needs to be setup with an external IP address (see network diagram above). The default gateway and DNS should be configured with the ISP’s values.

Now, external PCs can “dial” into the LAN. When conneted, via VPN, the client can only access resources on the remote LAN. They can not access the Internet. There is a workaround but it opens a potential security vulnerability. In the properties for the VPN connection, one can disable the “use default gateway” option. This is described elsewhere.

Initially, we could not access any resources on the remote LAN after the VPN connection was established. It turns out that the IP subnet for our internal LAN was often the same as remote users’ subnets. In other words, the remote LAN was using IP addresses like 192.168.1.x and so were remote users. RRAS requires different subnets. Since most home-based routers use 192.168.1.x as the default subnet, we decided to change the subnet used in the office. That meant changing the DHCP configuration only.

Winding down

All in all, the entire process of setting Windows 2003 Server with LAN capabilities for a small office is rather easy. The Manage Your Server tools does almost all the work and seems to provide good default settings. Hopefully the hints provided here make things easier for you, particularly in regards to VPN setup.

Other Useful Links:

How to setup a VPN Server