|
Been poking around this issue for a few days, trying to see if anyone has a potential workaround.
Have a few batch scripts to force updates of print drivers onto workstations. Was going just fine with WinXP boxes but I encountered a problem with Windows 2000 systems.
rundll32 printui.dll,PrintUIEntry /q /b "Test Printer" /if /f "generic.inf" /m "Generic Printer"
Even if the driver I'm pointing to is WHQL certified and has a valid digital signature the Win2k boxes are prompting for the Yes/No confirmation to continue loading the driver. Seems to be similar folks with this issue but haven't seen a clean workaround yet.
I'm not averse to trying to script this in VB.NET or C#.
"I've learned that life is one crushing defeat after another, until you just wish Flanders was dead." [Homer J Simpson]
|
|
|
|
|
Came across this strange scenario would be glad if anyone could give more info on this.
We have an application where the user would click on few links, on clicking these links a new pop window opened!
The no. of pop windows opened is varying sometimes 22, 25 etc etc. After opening these many windows it just hangs and does not allow any more windows to open!
Is there any sort of limit which is set default by IE or
is there any limit of applications for windows xp sp2 professional edition?
gauthee
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
Can anybody tell me how to restrict user from closing an application.
The scenario is, I have developed a time controller/recorder for users. Input form displays in the startup. User sets time on it and then it goes to systray and after the set time has passed, it shutsdown the system after givia warning or, if user wishes to do so, allows him to start another session. I have removed the control box but the problem is that the user can still close it with Alt + F4 Command.
Thanks
How this can be handled?
reman
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you'll ever be able to compleatly stop the user from shutting down the application if they want to without resorting to use a Group Policy to lock down the machine. Even if you stop alt-f4 they can still use the taskamanager to kill the process.
|
|
|
|
|
originSH wrote: taskamanager to kill the process
Process permissions? Normally users can kill processes running as Windows services right?
|
|
|
|
|
Windows services can be killed unless they are running as a system account. But you shouldn't have an app that can interact with the desktop running as the system account  It then also creates more problems when you want to use the users credentials.
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC the way to do it is to have a service running as system with all the logic, and a UI only app running in userland and use IPC to have the service feed data into the apps UI and restart it if closed.
--
You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm thats a nice solution 
I'm currently working on Web Service using IPC remoting for talking with its front end. It would'nt take much more for it to monitor and restart the front end.
It's also nice how in the future it should be relativly easy to switch over to tcp remoting and have a central management app 
|
|
|
|
|
hi all
I can create folder with command mkdir but i dont know
How can i share this folder by command dos?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to add users to an AD group, you need to have modify rights over the group. You don't need to have anything but view rights over the user.
This means that anyone with rights over a group can add any user they like into this group. Does anyone know of a way to restrict the users who can be added to that group to, for example, users within a particular OU?
|
|
|
|
|
If the user has been trusted with access to active directory and the group in question then they should be trusted as to which users they add. If they are untrust worthy why let them near it? This is why we have admin's :P
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a question of trustworthyness, it's a question of responsibility. Each line of business has its own OU structure and its own support team. Groups are used for permissioning resources. The support team for (for example) Sales should not be able to provide resources to someone in Marketing by adding them into a group that is in the Sales OU.
I want to be able to ensure that only a user's own support team can add them into groups that give them access to resources. Unfortunately I don't think it's possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm yeah I can see how in the situation it would be handy. You could possibly do it by creating separate domains and setting up the right trust hierarchies but that's probably a bit overkill
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I have 4 partitions in my hard disc c: , d: , f:, g:
i want to change the drive letter g: to e: ... i tried but i got a message that "changing drive letter may lead to data loss" .. is it so..
please help me changing the drive letter......
Thanks,
Vimal
If U Get Errors U Will Learn
If U Don't Get Errors U Have Learnt
|
|
|
|
|
You might get problems if you have any installed software on G: (i.e. in a ProgramFiles folder), otherwise you should be ok, but you should consider backing up the drive first.
|
|
|
|
|
So... If i change the Drive letter the data in that drive will be lost..... ?
If U Get Errors U Will Learn
If U Don't Get Errors U Have Learnt
|
|
|
|
|
You won't lose data (files, folders etc), but if you have applications installed on that drive, they probably won't run. This is because the installation will have written entries to the registry that contain paths to the executables in those applications, and if you change the drive letters then the paths will no longer be valid.
|
|
|
|
|
You could try to use Powerquest's Drive Mapper. It's for these situations when you change drive letters and want to preserve installed applications.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't tell me, tell the OP!
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
We have two servers.
One server is running the web application (IIS 6). Let's call it server 1.
The second server is running some services and web services dealing with major data manipulation.(server 2)
Upon completion of a certain process on server 2, a file needs to be copied to server 1.the copy is done via a web service call. this opertaion fails due to a security problem (login failed error msg is in the event log).
Both servers can "see" each other (ping, map network drive and server 2 is also defined with admin rights on server 1). copying the file "manually" is ok.
The target directory on server 1 is under inetpub\wwwroot\xxxxxxx.
The code is in C#, .Net framework 2, and the File.Copy method is used.
10x for any help might be provided.
Elrom
|
|
|
|
|
It is likely that the process that is running the copy on Server 2 does not have access rights (is it running as local system?) to the target folder on Server 1 - when you copy the file manually, it is using your access rights so the copy succeeds.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Server 2 is defined with admin rights on Server 1". If the process is running as a local account, this cannot be given rights on a different server as the accounts are restricted to the local machine.
|
|
|
|
|
hello to ALL,
i am using windows server 2003 system in that i have one folder named "TestParent" i share that folder and give some share permission. when i clicked on Permission button there was a default "Everyone" group added already,
i removed that group, and add my own active directory group,
now same thing i done at "security" tab (when we select folder and right click "properties" and "security" TAB)
and i have also checked the "Allow inheritable permission from parent to propagate to this object and child objects"
check box.
when i create a folder named "Child1" in the "TestParent" folder the security permission has been inherit but when i share the folder the access permission has not been inherited .....WHY????
can i do that ....??
please help.
thankx in advance.
regards,
koolprasad2003
Be a good listener...Because Opprtunity knoughts softly...N-Joy
|
|
|
|
|
koolprasad2003 wrote: "Allow inheritable permission from parent to propagate to this object and child objects"
Only applies toe NTFS permissions. It doesn't have any effect on Share permissions. Besides, there is no such thing as a Parent/Child relationship between Shares.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
