Darren New wrote:
> 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.
> 
Snort. Been in this situation a few times. Go to MS site, either not 
find anything on it at all, or find something so moronically unhelpful 
that you might as well as asked the family dog, "Bark, bark!". "Well, 
you are real helpful, I already knew it was application X that crashed, 
I want to know fracking *why*!" lol Seriously, again, why not something 
that at least told you want the codes "mean" in some usable way, as one 
of the available tools?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message