clutch

The reg tweak should apply to all of them (if you are referring to the one disabling the scan for printers and such), but the issue basically revolves around not having a WINS box on your network. When you have one (especially with DHCP, then you have one *very* happy NT network) all the boxes "check-in" at boot up and report who they are, and what resources they have available. At that point, the WINS box hangs on to that info, and when a client makes a request (through the notorious Network Neighborhood) it checks to see if it has looked for it before, then if not goes to a WINS box, then the LMHOSTS file, then broadcast mode. Once it has gone through all of that and *finally* finds all the clients, it will then ask for everything that's available (shares, services, etc) from these boxes and effectively what rank they are in the network. So, if you have a WINS box, this isn't an issue as it is higher up in the resolution order *and* has all the info it is looking for to begin with. Easy right? In any case, I don't have the reg key available at the moment, but if someone doesn't give it to you by Monday I can post it (I keep it in my reg key collection at the office ).

I don't know if any of you caught this bit of "news" before, but I thought I would share it with you: http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/patchsoft.shtml My fav part was this: Quote: Under the agreement, Microsoft will no longer issue patches, which Gates said explains the recent five-day outage at Microsoft's upgrade site. "That was planned," he said. "It was a test of the Microsoft No Patch Access system. Went perfectly. No one was able to download anything." Nice.

Quote: A lot of hystorically Novell sites moved to MS once AD was released, not because AD is better, it isn't, but because AD was powerfull enough so that they could move platforms. Not to mention that many MS applications are starting to leverage AD, and more can be developed using ADSI than can be done in the Novell environment. AD is easier, but if you are familiar with it then you should get by in the Novell class without any problems.

Ditto, but about 15 seconds (I am getting the .NET RC1 ISO as well ).

Quote: eh em? BTW, Atreyu gave this to me, but since he never comes by I figured I would share it.

OK, your response was way too big so I skimmed it. The response of "guards watching guards" on my part was in response to your question of "who's guarding the guards?" which is something that has been applied to many areas of security over the years (who's policing the police? Internal Affairs, but who's policing them?). Here's how it works; you ask any real admin who has to support not only workstations, servers, and their respective applications but enforce policies on the behalf of the company (usually through personnel or HR) and they will tell you that a fully open environment is simply the best policy. No privacy, period. So no, I did not contradict myself in any manner, but merely pointed out the overhead and flaws of your suggestion (and why it isn't implemented). Have a nice day (as in, end of this discussion for me).

Actually, there was no reply as I didn't really understand what I initially read of the benchmark report. Essentially, the post was so large that it overloaded me, so I went to the benchmark itself and I guess I just didn't "get it". I may look at it later.

You have got to be kidding. The example you have shown actually proves just how *big* your method is and how long it takes to get anywhere. Sure, in something as complicated as running a country it may work out OK, but in something as lame as monitoring email traffic that is simply overkill. Assigning personnel to watch other personnel is very resource intensive. And even if it's assigned as a "side" duty, it is still an overhead that can't be overlooked. Have you ever been involved in a project that just couldn't get anywhere because you *constantly* had to get someone "on-board" with the project? Or, there was so much debating about some mundane detail that it nearly (or may have) canceled the project? This is what happens when you drag too many people into the equation. Congress takes forever to move a stupid bill around, and that's a hell of a lot more important than reviewing email or scanning files.

Quote: My question & statement however is: Who's "guarding the guards", the admins?? Pointless question, as it can endlessly be applied to the guards guarding them and so on. The systems are property of the company, and the admins are held responsible for their operation. If the admin is charged with monitoring email or anything else on the system, so be it. Kids have lockers in schools that are subject to search, while adults that have lockers at work have the same rules as well. Very simple; don't jack around with or on the computer, and you will do fine.

I wouldn't mind it.

It's hard to tell who you are talking to online anyway, so I probably have done that many times already.

Try here as well: http://www.users.on.net/ekstreme/extras/msjavx86.exe

OK, you are confusing the two different topics. First, if someone was on my property trying to break in or listen to what I am saying, that is trespassing AND invasion of privacy. If this person was off my property, but was trying to listen in (via directional mic or whatever) that would be invasion of privacy as well as I am still on my property. Now, let's say that you were to be held responsible for ANYTHING that can be said/written/expressed on your property by anyone either on OR off of your property, would you have more incentive to keep an eye on things? You haven't been an admin in quite a while to ride the more current court rulings, so you probably haven't had to deal with HR's perspective on these legal issues. It's company property, and the company can and is held liable for anything held/displayed by it.

The network is owned by the company, and should be treated as such, period. If they own a locker, they can go into it. Many companies require waivers to allow for searches of handbags and such as they enter/leave the property (and some others require the use of clear plastic handbags or none at all). PCs are not meant to have anything personal on them, and should be treated as such.

You can actually make and receive calls on a wireless phone? That's crazy talk!

So the idea is that someone can only get in if they meet the combination of tenure and post count? Where have you seen this method used before at? How well does it work to boost the quality of posts? Would it bring DeadCats back?

Reason 1. I got a cheap Intel 1.6GHz Northwood and a Soyo P4S Dragon Ultra and cranked it up to 2.4GHz. It also has a GF Ti4600 and some other spiffy things. I use it for some parasolid modeling in Solidworks (CAD app), Visual Studio.NET and DB Development, and games. The most expensive part was the 1GB of DDR333 Mushkin RAM, but it was worth it. It's nice having Outlook, 5 or more IE sessions, VS.NET, SQL Server Manager, McAfee, Trillian, etc all running in the background and then deciding to play Q3A or America's Army without having an appreciable drop in performance. Reason 2. Because I can.

Quote: As much as I think it sounds like a good idea, I believe it would just end up promoting some young forum go-ers to spam the boards just to get high post counts. DF, what I think he means is that people would spam the *main* board in order to get the posts needed to get into the upper level board. And honestly, I can see that happening.

Read "copy and paste" in his post. If you copy the links into "run" or another IE window, they will work. And yes, that's still lame.

I know that you have mentioned Delphi being shown as faster in a benchmark, but do you have anything showing that it's still faster (as in within the last 2 years). Or better yet, anything benchmarking it between the C# or VB.NET languages? I am getting further into programming (beyond simple ASP/ADO stuff) and I am trying to cover both VB.NET and C#, but I never looked at Delphi. Is there a Delphi.NET interpreter/CLR?

I generally don't let anyone have elevated access to anything. The only problems that I have had were users complaining of Win2K/WinXP going into low power mode either in workstations or laptops. In those cases I would let them be admins temporarily to adjust the power options on those systems, and then lock'em back out again. Once I get the time, I plan on making a template for those settings so I can push those out via AD. The only other time I have to screw with permissions is with poorly written apps like AutoCAD, which don't support NT permissions properly and you have to make them a local admin because of the installation layout. I *think* if I were to either A. Repackage the installer (gay), or B. Use a monitor to watch a fresh installation process *and* the first start up of the app under admin privies and then change all the permissions on those reg entries and files then I could probably (and have in the past) get around this. But for the most part I just lock'em down so it's less hassle. Oh, and with SMS you could trash a great many things with it, but over the last 2 years of using it I haven't run in to anything major.

Well, the article is missing a few things actually. First, ADO.NET is actually an umbrella of connection protocols, and the two main ones are the SqlDataAdapter and the OleDbDataAdapter that are used to connect to databases. The OleDbDataAdapter has a ODBC wrapper of sorts to connect to pretty much any database out there, while the SqlDataAdapter is tuned specifically for SQL Servers 7.0 and up. Also, while MS was working on this particular adapter for Oracle DBs, Oracle is also coming up with its own for .NET developers. It would be interesting to see who has the better performing one of the pair when Oracle releases theirs.

Quote: What if you programmed the lmhosts file to identify the IP address of the DC? Of course, this assumes they have inet access from the other network. But at least then their computers would know where to look for the authentication, right? "%windir%\system32\drivers\etc\lmhosts.sam" has the basic documentation and examples for this. That would be great (I have done this to allow remote workstations to get to Exchange servers in the past), but it sounds like he doesn't have a DC setup on the edge of his network to handle authentication (not to mention that would be a major security risk). It's a sound idea, but I'm not sure that's what he's looking for.

NP. Normally the authentication chain will start with local authentication, and then escalate up to BDCs (AD DCs without a GC), and then to PDCs (AD DCs with a GC, or DCs set to act as PDCs for legacy and 3rd party OSs/applications such as Linux/Samba). If both accounts are valid on the hosting laptop, it should allow the connecting one "in".

Has each accountant logged on to one another's laptop, so that both account's credentials are on *both* laptops? I know what you are talking about, but I haven't had a need to setup laptops so that they can share files between themselves. If I get a chance here, I'll dig up a couple and take a look.