Win OS – Error – “An unhandled win32 exception occurred in spoolsv.exe”


Have a few MS Windows 2003 computers running in our LAB.


When I do bother to use them there is an arresting error that I have been receiving.

Error – “An unhandled win32 exception occurred in spoolsv.exe”




An unhandled win32 exception occurred in spoolsv.exe

Trouble Shooting

Control Panel

Printers and Faxes


  1. Accessed Control Panel
    • Reviewed Printers and Faxes



Event Viewer

Event Viewer \ System


  1. Launched Event Viewer
    • Review System Events
      • Event ID :- 7031
        • Event #1
          • Source :- Service Control Manager
          • Event ID :- 7031
          • The Print Spooler service terminated unexpectedly. It has done this 1 time(s). The following corrective action will be taken in 60000 milliseconds: Restart the service.





We have an HP LaserJet computer that we have not used in a while.  It is currently turned off.


  1. Computer
    • Remove HP LaserJet Software installed on computer
    • MS Windows Registry Cleanup



Remove HP LaserJet Software installed on computer

Removed any installed HP LaserJet software.

MS Windows Registry Cleanup


Cleanup MS Windows Registry using regedit :-

  1. Start regedit
  2. Navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Print\Environments\Windows NT x86\Drivers
  3. Export Registry sub-key out to a file for safe keeping
  4. Under this key, there will be the keys Version-2 and Version-3
    • The sub-keys under these contain the printer driver configuration information
    • One or the other of these may be absent – not a problem
  5. Maintain each Sub-key
  6. But, search each sub-key for drivers no longer present on the computer
    • On each found sub-key, remove found sub-key
    • In our case
      • HP Laser Jet 2100
      • HP Laser Jet 2100 PCL6


Image – Before


Image – After



Crediting Mr. Shafique Cheena ( Profile )

Shafique Cheena

Event ID 7031 Print Spooler terminated unexpectedly



IIS/VBScript – GetObject – Error – 2147221020


Stole some code and now I can’t get it to work.


Error Image


Error Text

>cscript getWebService.vbs
Microsoft (R) Windows Script Host Version 5.812
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Enumerating websites on localhost

GetObject IIS://localhost/W3SVC
Error Number :- -2147221020
Error Source :-
Error Description :-




DIM strServer
DIM objWebService
Dim strPathName

TAB  = CHR( 9 )
CRLF = CHR( 13 ) & CHR( 10 )

IF WScript.Arguments.Length = 1 THEN
    strServer = WScript.Arguments( 0 )
    strServer = "localhost"

WScript.Echo "Enumerating websites on " & strServer & CRLF

strPathName =  "IIS://" & strServer & "/W3SVC" 

WScript.Echo "GetObject " & strPathName


rem SET objWebService = GetObject( "IIS://" & strServer & "/W3SVC" )

SET objWebService = GetObject( strPathName  )

If ( Err.Number  0 ) Then 

	Wscript.Echo "Error Number :- " + CSTR(Err.Number)

	Wscript.Echo "Error Source :- " + Err.Source

	Wscript.Echo "Error Description :- " + Err.Description





  1. Please enable IIS 6 Metabase
    • Access Control Panel
    • Access Programs and Features
      • Within Programs and Features, choose Windows
    • Add Roles and Features Wizard
      • Web Server ( IIS )
        • Management Tools
          • IIS 6 Management Compatibility



Add Roles and Features Wizard

Add Roles and Features Wizard – Server Roles

Add Roles and Features Wizard – Server Roles – Web Server

Management Tools – IIS 6 Management Compatibility – Adding Role – Management Service


Management Tools – IIS 6 Management Compatibility – Confirm Installation Selections


Management Tools – IIS 6 Management Compatibility – Installation Progress


Management Tools – IIS 6 Management Compatibility – Installation Completed



David Wang




21 Savage



  1. 21 Savage – a lot ft. J. Cole
    • Songwriters: Shayaa Abraham-Joseph / Jermaine Cole / Dacoury Natche
    • Videos
      • Youtube
      • Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
      •  Twitter
  2. Genius
    • 21 Savage Talks ‘I Am Greater Than I Was,’ Working With J. Cole & His Whisper Flow | For The Record
      • Videos
      • Mentioned
        • Beyonce
        • Project Pat
        • J Cole
  3. ICE Arrest
    • ABC News – Good Morning America
      • 21 Savage sat down with “Good Morning America” for his first interview after he was released on bond from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.
      • Videos
        • Video #1
          Channel :- ABC News
          Published On :- 2019-Feb-15th


21 Savage – a lot ft. J. Cole

21 Savage



J. Cole – Intro


J. Cole – Actual


Lyrics Break Down

21 Savage – a lot ft. J. Cole

Markelle Fultz

Additionally, Cole also makes a play on words, as Markelle’s jump shot and his shot to make it in life, has been messed up.

Fultz commented on the shout-out in an interview with Bleacher Report’s Taylor Rooks, saying:

Means a lot. Real recognize real. And my bro Dennis [Smith Jr.] is family so it was cool.



Close Up

Best assume Cole killed it
But, then who measure up
Credit 21 for even having him on

SSMS – v2008 – Error – “Index was outside the bounds of the array. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)”


Drew a quick error running Sql Server Management Studio (SSMS).



The error reads :-

Index was outside the bounds of the array. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)




  1. Error reads
    • Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo
    • Index was outside the bounds of the array


Tried connecting to Microsoft SQL Server v2017 instance with Sql Server Management Studio v2008.




SysInternals / Process Explorer


  1. Download SysInternals \ Process Explorer
  2. Launched SysInternal’s Process Explorer
  3. Selected the ssms.exe
  4. View process modules
    • Click on menu “View”\”Show Lower Pane”
  5. Find
    • Click on menu and choose Find
    • Enter smo
    • Reviewed found modules
  6. Launched Windows Explorer
  7. Accessed the found DLL
  8. Noted version number as 10.0.1600.22
Image – Process Explorer


Image – Handle or DLL substring


Windows Explorer



Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Service Pack 4 Feature Pack

SQL Server SMO is bundled as part of SQL Server Feature Pack.

The latest version is Service Pack 4 and it is available here.


  1. Shared Management Objects
    • ENU\X86\SharedManagementObjects.msi
  2. Clr Types
    • ENU\X86\SQLSysClrTypes.msi


  1. Download
    • Download ENU\X86\SharedManagementObjects.msi
    • Download ENU\X86\SQLSysClrTypes.msi
  2. Install
    • Install SQLSysClrTypes.msi
    • Install SharedManagementObjects.msi



SQL System CLR Types


Management Objects



Management Objects
Prerequisite – Missing Microsoft SQL Server 2008 System CLR Types




System CLR Types
Installation – SQL Server 2008 System CLR Types


Post Installation Review


  1. Post Installation
    • Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo.dll
    • Version
      • Moved from 10.0.1600.22 to 10.0.6000.29




Acknowledged Giles D Middleton.




  1. stack overflow
    • Index was outside the bounds of the Array. (Microsoft.SqlServer.smo)
  2.  Microsoft
    • Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Service Pack 4 Feature Pack


Tom Krazit :- Why some open-source companies are considering a more closed approach


There is a topic that I have been following in the last few months.

And, it is how well Cloud Service Providers are protecting the Open Source Ecosystem.

Writing for GeekWire, here is Tom Krazit update from  2018-Nov-19th.



At the peak of its power, open-source software is having an existential crisis.

There’s no question that the concept of open-source software has revolutionized the enterprise software world, which spent billions of dollars fighting the mere idea for several years before accepting that a new future had arrived. But more than a few people are starting to wonder if the very nature of open-source software ― the idea that it can be used by pretty much anyone for pretty much anything ― is causing its developers big problems in the era of distributed cloud computing services.

Since we last explored this topic, two prominent open-source software companies have made the decision to alter the licenses under which some of their software is distributed, with the expressed intent of making it harder ― or impossible ― for cloud computing providers to offer a service based around that software.

Two companies does not a movement make. But as the cloud world packs its bags for Las Vegas and Amazon Web Services’ re:Invent 2018 conference next week, underscoring that company’s ability to set the agenda for the upcoming year, the intersection between open-source projects and cloud computing services is on many people’s minds.

“The way that I would think of it, the role that open source plays in creating commercial opportunities has changed,” said Abby Kearns, executive director of the open-source Cloud Foundry Foundation. “We’re going to see a lot more of this conversation happening than less.”

Changing of the guard

“I would put it in a very blunt way: for many years we were suckers, and let them take what we developed and make tons of money on this.”

Redis Labs CEO Ofer Bengal doesn’t mince words. His company, known for its open-source in-memory database, has been around for eight years, an eternity in the fast-changing world of modern enterprise software.

Cloud computing was very much underway in 2011, but it was still a tool for early adopters or startups that couldn’t afford to bet millions on servers to incubate a promising but unproven idea. Most established companies were still building their own tech infrastructure the old-fashioned way, but they were increasingly realizing that open-source software would allow them to build that infrastructure with open-source components in ways that were much more flexible and cheaper than proprietary packages from traditional enterprise software companies

AWS likes to insist that it is primarily focused on its customers, but that focus also allows it to see which technologies and services are gaining traction in order to offer similar services to its customers. It launched an AWS-managed version of the open-source version of Redis as a cloud service in 2013. Redis became quite popular during that period, and major companies like American Express, Home Depot, and Dreamworks built tech infrastructure using the database. Redis Labs offers its own product, Redis Enterprise, that provides the database as a service on public clouds or supports customers running it on their own infrastructure, and continues to contribute to the Redis open-source project.

Since then, AWS has made “hundreds of millions” of dollars offering Redis to its customers without contributing nearly as much to the open-source community that builds and maintain that project, Bengal said. It’s impossible to know exactly how much money we’re really talking about, but it’s certainly true that AWS and other cloud providers benefit from the work of open-source developers they do not employ.

“Ninety-nine percent of the contributions to Redis were made by Redis Labs,” Bengal said. There’s a longstanding myth in the open-source world that projects are driven by a community of contributors, but in reality, paid developers contribute the bulk of the code in most modern open-source projects, as Puppet founder Luke Kanies explained in our story earlier this year.

That money has to come from somewhere. For a long time, Redis was a good example of a successful open-source business model, shepherding the base project while developing its own software and services around it. But as more and more companies embrace cloud computing and “lift and shift” their existing applications and infrastructure to providers like AWS, it makes a lot of sense to use the AWS Redis service alongside all the other table-stakes AWS services like EC2 and S3 as opposed to a service offered by Redis through the AWS Marketplace.

“This is a problem not just for us but for almost any successful open-source project to date,” Bengal said. And while AWS is always the focus of these conversations due to its market power, it’s far from the only cloud provider around the world offering these types of open-source projects as services.

So in August, Redis Labs decided to convert the license it uses for new database extensions built on top of Redis — but not Redis itself — to the Commons Clause license, which specifies that other companies are not allowed to offer those extensions as a cloud service.

“We keep the freedom to decide for each piece of software whether to put that under the permissive open-source license or Commons Clause,” Bengal said. “This is basically a business decision.”

Then in October, another well-known open-source database company made a similar decision. MongoDB announced that going forward, it would license the MongoDB Community Server software under a different license called SSPL, which allows cloud providers to offer MongoDB as a service but requires them to either open-source all of the code they write to create that service or reach a commercial arrangement with MongoDB.

It’s not a coincidence that two database companies are leading this charge. Databases are extremely complicated projects to develop and absolutely vital to any enterprise company operating at scale.“Whenever a new open-source project becomes popular, cloud providers strip mine the technology, put the freeware on their platform, capture most if not all of the value but give little back to the community,” said Dev Ittycheria, president and CEO of MongoDB, currently valued at $4.3 billion on the Nasdaq. “We think it’s important for someone like us to lead and help the next set of open-source companies and projects thrive and grow.”

Ittycheria estimated that MongoDB had spent $150 million on research and development over the years to create and maintain the open-source version of the database. In its last fiscal year, MongoDB recorded $154.5 million from its commercial software and support services.

“Our view is that open-source software was never intended for cloud infrastructure companies to take and sell,” wrote Salil Deshpande, managing director of Bain Capital Ventures, in a post on Techcrunch after Redis announced its decision. Deshpande is an investor in Redis Labs and whose efforts to organize open-source companies and develop the Commons Clause license we previewed in March.

As open-source software became such an important part of the enterprise software world, it was probably inevitable that commercial interests would start to influence its direction more and more. The questions now are, what does it mean to be open source? And what do companies that generate revenue from offering services around open-source projects they did not develop owe to the creators and maintainers of those projects?

Open and shut

When considering the first question, it’s important to note that Redis’ Commons Clause license is decidedly not an open-source license, which everyone involved readily admits. Redis remains an open-source project under the widely used BSD license, but the company now applies the Commons Clause license to extensions it develops around that project.

With MongoDB, it’s a little different. Because the SSPL license stipulates that more open-source software should be the result when cloud providers offer an open-source project as a service, the company argues that this is consistent with the ethos of open source.

“Everyone wants more open source, but someone’s got to fund it. And to fund it you need to make sure you have a commercial existence,” Ittycheria said.

Adam Jacob, co-founder and CTO of Seattle’s Chef, which maintains a trio of open-source projects designed to make infrastructure and application management easier, was skeptical that this is the right direction for the future of open-source projects, developers, and companies.

“I don’t think it’s a community-based movement, for sure it’s not a movement in the way open source was a movement or that free software was a movement,” Jacob said. “It’s not like there’s a third-leg movement that’s like, ‘you know what we need is stronger commercial protections for businesses.’”
“The more interesting thing hiding inside here is that, from an open-source business model point of view, the open-source part of what they were doing was always a component of distribution for their business model. It was more about developer reach,” Jacob said, the primary goal being to create a “funnel strategy” that would draw in users with a free version and upsell them on the commercial version.After all, when they were getting off the ground and raising money companies like Redis and MongoDB were quite happy to take advantage of the friendly and open-minded nature of the open-source community to spread the word about their creations, he said.

Yet for a lot of small companies, participating in open-source communities and maintaining projects is the only way to compete against the more established players. One of the hardest things to do as a young unproven enterprise software company is to convince other companies they need to pay for your product.

“Open source offers a lot of opportunity, particularly for startup companies,” Kearns said. But at some point, that early strategic decision can become an albatross, she said; another really hard thing to do is to convince someone that what they once enjoyed for free now comes with a price.

Clouds on the horizon

This perhaps gets to the crux of the debate: is there still value in developing software out in the open as a community process that everyone can use, even if the days of the hobbyist open-source developer are long gone and cloud providers can take advantage of that work without having to contribute anything back?

Jacob thinks so.

“My belief is that what we have done wrong, we actually stopped trusting the commons and the value of free software as a necessity for building better communities because we decided very early on that the business and the community were two separate things,” he said.

Redis and MongoDB believe they aren’t throwing their open-source communities under the bus. They argue they have no choice but to find new ways to financially support the work of their developers, who are absolutely essential to the health of those communities, even if some of that work remains proprietary or comes with strings attached.

The big three cloud providers are keeping quiet on these issues for now, declining to make executives available to discuss this shift in open-source licensing. Google has evangelized the value of open-source since its earliest days, while Microsoft and AWS have taken different paths to this new world.

After years as Public Enemy #1, Microsoft has embraced open-source software, hiring developers with strong open-source experience and making some key contributions back to several communities. AWS has been slower to work closely with the open-source community, but has changed its tune over the last few years, bringing on open-source veterans like James Gosling and Adrian Cockcroft to shift its thinking about community contributions.

If more companies switch to this more aggressive style of licensing, it could force a shift in product-development strategies at cloud providers as they assess which services are worth striking commercial deals over, and which are not. For now, there are still lots of startups launching companies and projects around traditional open-source licenses, which means the industry is waiting to see how the market reacts to Redis and MongoDB’s moves.

But cloud computing has changed nearly all of the assumptions around how modern businesses should build and manage the technology they need to compete in the 21st century. It wouldn’t be too surprising if cloud computing changed some of the assumptions behind open-source software development.

Phoenix Coldon – Where is She?



  1. The Disappearance of Phoenix Coldon
    • Videos
      • The Disappearance of Phoenix Coldon Part 2 Where is She
        • Video #1
          Published On :- 2018-Nov-5th
      • The Disappearance of Phoenix Coldon Part 2 Where is She
        • Video #1
          Published On :- 2018-Nov-5th
      • The Disappearance Of Phoenix Coldon: Bonus clip – Sighting Of Phoenix (Season 1, Episode 2) | Oxygen
        • Profile
          • Family friend, Jeffrey Hargrove, recalls two sightings of Phoenix Coldon two years after her disappearance. Watch episodes of The Disappearance of Phoenix Coldon, premiering November 3rd at 7/6c on Oxygen.
        • Video #1
          Published On :- 2018-Nov-3rd
          Channel :- Oxygen
      • Waiting for Phoenix
        • Profile
          • Phoenix Coldon went missing in 2011.
        • Videos
          • Video #1
            Published On :- 2014-Nov-1st
            Channel :- Ejd8v5
    • Participants
      • Lawrence
      • Shawndrea Thomas, Journalist
      • Joe Delia, Retired Deputy Chief Of Police, St. Louis
    • Location
      • St Louis
    • Dates
      • 2011-Dec-18th ( Date Disappeared )


Barbara Plett Usher // Obama’s Syria legacy: Measured diplomacy, strategic explosion

Author :- Barbara Plett Usher
Dated :- 13 January 2017


  1. Matthew Pennington, The Associated Press
    • Military Times
      • Pentagon: Afghan war costing US $45 billion per year

Story Line

How did a man who took office espousing a new era of engagement with the world end up a spectator to this century’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe?

Barack Obama was not against using force to protect civilians. Yet he resisted, to the end, a military intervention to stem Syria’s six-year civil war, even as it killed or displaced half the country’s population, brutally documented in real time on social media.

Part of the answer to this vexing question has been clear from the beginning. President Obama was elected to end America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by a people tired of paying the cost in blood and treasure. He was extremely reluctant to get sucked into another messy Middle East conflict.

But when the siege and bombardment of cities like Aleppo placed the violence on the genocidal scale of atrocities set by Rwanda and Srebrenica, inaction by the US and its allies mocked the international community’s vows of “never again”.

Despite the pressing moral imperative, Obama remained convinced a military intervention would be a costly failure.

He believed there was no way the US could help win the war and keep the peace without a commitment of tens of thousands of troops. The battlefield was too complex: fragmented into dozens of armed groups and supported by competing regional and international powers.

“It was going to be impossible to do this on the cheap,” he said in his final press conference of 2016.

But that was not the conclusion of some senior military and cabinet officials, nor did they even propose a mass ground deployment, according to former defence secretary Chuck Hagel.

They argued that a more limited engagement could have effectively tilted the balance of power against President Bashar al-Assad. Among the options: arming the rebels and setting up a safe zone from where they could operate early in the conflict, or military strikes on the Syrian air force to push Assad to the negotiating table.

Instead, the Obama administration focused on providing humanitarian aid, and on promoting a ceasefire and political negotiations aimed at Assad’s departure.

“There is no military solution” became the mantra in briefing rooms at the White House and state department, but spokespeople were unable to explain how a political solution was possible without military leverage.

“If there is to be any hope of a political settlement, a certain military and security context is required,” former CIA Director David Petraeus told a Senate committee last year. “We and our partners need to facilitate it, and…have not done so.”

Obama’s caution was reinforced by lack of support for military intervention from key allies such as the UK and Germany. That influenced his decision to back away from his famous “red line” threat of force in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons.

It was also part of a larger pessimism about what the US could achieve in the Middle East, sealed by a Nato intervention in Libya that was carefully planned but still left the country in a mess.

“The liberal interventionists seem to have forgotten that it is no longer the 1990s,” wrote two of Obama’s former national security officials, Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, in October last year. “Disastrous forays in Iraq and Libya have undermined any American willingness to put values before interests.”

Indeed, to fully understand President Obama’s reticence, it is important to also understand that despite his liberal instincts and his soaring rhetoric about a more peaceful global order, he was a foreign policy realist with a keen sense of the limits to American power.

Although he campaigned to restore US moral authority after the disaster of the Iraq War, he rejected what he saw as the moralising interventionism of the president he replaced, George W Bush.

Instead, his emphasis was on measured diplomacy and progressive multilateralism.

That included a willingness to engage with repressive regimes, rather than consign them to an “Axis of Evil” – giving them “the choice of an open door“, he told the Nobel Peace Committee when accepting its prize at the end of his first year in office.

Above all, he was not willing to prevent humanitarian tragedies by expending American lives and military power unless he saw a direct security threat to the United States.

The agreement on Iran’s nuclear deal is an example of this doctrine at its most effective.

Obama ably used diplomacy to force an issue around which there was a high degree of international consensus. He marshalled broad support for crippling sanctions, and then stretched out his hand to America’s most enduring Middle East foe and negotiated an achievable deal – one that limited a threat rather than transformed a relationship.

Cuba also walked through that “open door”, propelled by an economic crisis at home and drawn by a less hostile political climate in America, as did the junta in Myanmar.

Damascus did not. And Obama decided against trying to push it through.

US administrations have tended to bridge the gap between values and interests when the moral choice is also strategic. But Obama calculated early on that the Syrian civil war did not directly endanger America’s national security.

Instead he focused US military might against the so-called Islamic State (IS), which he did eventually see as a threat to the homeland.

Again, he was able to organise an international coalition that has had considerable success in achieving a limited goal.

Dividing his Syria policy in two, however, meant inevitable contradictions. The White House held that the only way to stop the spread of IS was to end the rule and brutality of the Assad regime. But America’s absence from the civil conflict served to strengthen the Syrian president.

Obama did grudgingly approve some covert military aid to moderate Syrian rebels to diffuse the power of Islamist fighters. But it wasn’t enough to shape them into a force that could defeat Assad.

So the vacuum was filled by the better-supplied Islamist groups, feeding into Assad’s narrative that the world had to choose between him or terrorists.

The presence of Islamist rebels, along with the momentum of the anti-IS campaign, also began to colour views of the regime within the administration, according to a US official who worked closely with these issues.

“Everything was done through a counterterrorism lens,” he says. “This is a bunch of people who wanted Assad to stay because they were terrified of political Islamists taking over.”

Obama argued that the regime’s supporters, Russia and Iran, had more at stake in Syria than the US and would be prepared to fight harder to defend it. So any American intervention would only escalate the conflict. It’s the same calculation he made in his approach to Ukraine.

Russia did enter the war to reverse rebel gains in 2015, turning the tide. Its anti-aircraft weapons closed the door on even the remote chance of a US intervention. Its air force solidified Assad’s grip on Syria’s cities, culminating in the military victory over Aleppo and giving Moscow new leverage in the Middle East while sidelining the US.

Many in the American foreign policy establishment believe Obama erred in defining US interests too narrowly in Syria.

“Syria exploded in strategic ways,” says Vali Nasr, who’s written a book arguing that the president’s policies have diminished America’s leadership role in the world.

“It empowered Russia and Iran, produced ISIS, strengthened al-Qaeda and created the refugee crisis which became a strategic threat to Europe.”

Obama’s critics have also faulted him for a detached, analytical leadership style they say is unsuited to geopolitical jousting.

“He wasn’t good at brinkmanship, it wasn’t his inclination,” says Ian Bremmer, president of the political risk firm Eurasia Group.

“I’ve always thought [George W] Bush was a leader who didn’t like to think, and Obama a thinker who didn’t like to lead.”

Obama has taken the lead on combating what he sees as one of the biggest threats, climate change. And he hasn’t hesitated from unilaterally ordering force when he felt America’s security was at stake, as shown by his prolific use of drones against terrorist suspects.

But in Syria his administration left a perception of American weakness.

Stepping back from his red line on chemical weapons damaged US credibility, shaking the confidence of allies and, some argue, emboldening its adversaries.

“Some in the administration thought that the longer we continued to engage the Russians in a facade of ceasefire and political negotiations the more we were providing political cover to the regime and Russia and Iran as they continued to pursue a military victory,” said the US official.

“It’s hard to understand why the state department is going along with it,” a European diplomat told me as the talks became about managing that victory. “It’s supporting the Russian narrative.”

Although Obama says he came to understand that very little is accomplished in international affairs without US leadership, he doesn’t talk about it as a strategic asset, says Nasr.

That sets him apart from his predecessors who “believe US leadership is important for the world and important for America’s hardnosed interests. Obama believes we can selectively lead where we have clear definable interests… but American leadership as a free-floating independent idea doesn’t have value to him”.

Despite the personality chasm between the cerebral lawyer exiting the White House and the reality TV star entering it, Barack Obama and Donald Trump are on the same page when it comes to non-interventionism.

In that sense, Trump’s “America First” foreign policy is expected to be an extension of President Obama’s.

But it would be a stripped-down version without Obama’s attachment to international law and institutions or his moral commitment to universal rights, argues Max Boot, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

And although neither would seek foreign quarrels, Trump would be more disposed to “clobber anyone who messes with” the United States.

Would that make major powers such as China and Russia less likely to mess with America?

Boot suggests Trump’s “menacing unpredictability” could be more effective than Obama’s reasonable predictability in confrontations with Beijing. The President-elect’s call with the Taiwanese president shows a penchant for brinkmanship that has certainly put China on alert.

Against these uncertain advantages, however, stand Trump’s inexperience, his intemperate nature, and his hostility to some of the building blocks of US power, such as free trade in Asia.

Crucially, his uncritical support for Moscow, along with allegations that it has compromising information about him, have put America’s Russia policy into uncharted territory.

Some of the President-elect’s key cabinet officials can be expected to try and temper his extreme impulses and outlier positions, while taking a more muscular approach than Obama.

In confirmation hearings, Trump’s choices for secretary of state and defence advocated a conventional hard power policy, that included checking Russian moves on the geopolitical chess board.

But the nominee for top diplomat, Rex Tillerson, echoed Trump’s hard line on China by proposing an unusually aggressive stance against Beijing, raising eyebrows and concerns amongst many lawmakers and diplomats.

History could very well judge Obama positively on Iran, Cuba and climate change. But the most important test of his foreign policy philosophy will be Syria, because it has been the crucible for the kind of realism he believes in.

He argues that he’s saved the US from getting trapped in another disastrous Middle East war that would sap America’s power. His critics charge he has diminished US power in a crucial region, and weakened American global leadership in the process.

The factor that shapes his legacy will be the same one that tests Trump: the extent to which either sustain, or reduce America’s role in the world.