Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Newsflash: If your administrators can't be trusted, you have A Big Problem.

Not true. It's certainly easier to trust your administrators. But being able 
to audit the administrators is probably a good idea.

>> Not really. That's the easiest way to do it, but it isn't necessary. 
>> Everything about the user is stored in the file system, so...
> 
> Yeah, sure, because it's really easy to figure out how every random 
> screwed up app designed for Windows 95 is using the filesystem to store 
> its stuff, right?

I didn't say it was easier. I said it was possible. If it's actually enough 
of a problem, you'll buy a new program that works with remote management 
technologies, or you'll hire someone to figure out where stuff is stored.

>> If you knew how to work it, you could do it. Do you think people at 
>> Microsoft or American Express hang around to enter their passwords 
>> while the sysadmin fixes things?
> 
> Presumably they don't use obscure, badly designed software...

Or they hire someone to work out what they need to do to fix things.

>>> - Allow Administrators to unlock a workstation without destroying all 
>>> of the user's unsaved work. (IOW, without terminating all the stuff 
>>> they have running.)
>>
>> Wouldn't be much of a lock, would it?
> 
> Why? Because one person in the building can unlock it? (Note that the 
> administrator can *already* unlock it - as can anybody else by using the 
> on/off switch, come to think of it.)

No. They can't unlock the programs running on the machine under another user 
ID. They can only unlock the entire machine.

> It would just be nice if somebody 
> goes home and forgets to save their work if I didn't have to destroy all 
> that work.

Why would you log them out?  Let it run. Open a new session if someone else 
needs to use the same console.

>> You didn't provide the actual interesting information, which is the 
>> Event ID.
> 
> Yes, but you get my *point*. Turn on auditing, perform a few trivial 
> actions, watch your event log fill with many megabytes of data that 
> nobody knows what it means.

Because *you* don't know what it means doesn't mean *nobody* knows what it 
means.

> As far as I can tell, M$ hasn't actually documented many of them yet. 

As far as you could tell, MS didn't document what programs you get when you 
buy Office Home. That isn't saying much. ;-)

> (E.g., the HD light is flashing away, yet PE shows no 
> I/O activity.)

NTFS slowly commits the log out to the disk. If you do something big, it 
might take 20 or 30 seconds to finish in the background after it has already 
been committed.  Try running "sync", and then see if it still happens.

> Actually, I used to say that about XP. Let me rephrase: I hope I never 
> have to use Vista before they're finished fixing it. ;-)

Dunno. Works great for me. You seem to have bad luck, tho, so... Wait for 
Win7SP1. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message