| Tuesday, May
29, 2001 We begin with
some comments on the column posted
yesterday.
Hi Jerry:
Having upgraded or installed well over 1000 W2Pro
systems I can sympathize with your "thrashing" with the install
on your wife's machine in attempting to attach to it your domain. In my
experience, here's the simplest way:
1.) Create or use a user account on the server, with
normal user privileges for the domain.
2) Install W2K on the local machine either leaving
the built-in local admin account as is ("administrator") or do
some creative naming. I have found it much easier NOT to add the machine
to the domain during the install. Configure it to a local workgroup, which
lasts as long as it takes to complete step 3, below. Install no other apps
here.
3) Attach the machine to the domain when the install
is complete. (My Comp>Network ID>Props).
4) After the obligatory reboot, log on to the domain
as the user.
5) Go to control panel>users and passwords,
select the domain user, properties, group membership, and select
"other" with administrators coming up as default. It will
require the local administrator password to assign these same local admin
privs to the domain user. To repeat the obvious, this gives the domain
user on the machine local administrative privileges (hence installing
programs, or whatever). This may not be appropriate for users in large
networks, but I have yet to find a small to medium network where local
admin privs did anything but make things easier for both the user and the
sysadmin.
6) Outlook/Office could be installed normally at
this point of course, with old PST files imported. If Office *was*
installed under the local admin profile, it sure isn't necessary to
uninstall it. Just rerun the install under the new domain user profile. It
doesn't add or move files, just resets some pointers and updates the local
desktop. And as a final note, the *domain* administrator doesn't have to
be given privs on the local machine unless management issues require it -
again seldom in small nets.
This sounds more cumbersome than it is - just
install locally, attach, and give the new domain user you just created
local admin privs.
Regards,
Joe Munson
Thanks. As I said, things worked
about the way I should have expected, and I should have given it more
thought. Still:
You wrote: I shouldn't have been, of course.
Windows 2000 did about what I wanted it to do, letting her (well, me
acting in her login name) build the kind of desktop she was used to, and
set things up properly, while being unable to do anything really drastic.
Under Windows 98 it didn't make any difference what name you logged in
under, you had the same privileges and powers. With 2000, you have to be
more careful and think things out a bit in advance.
Yes, you should have been. Where is the
utility which allows the admin person to say "make this user look
like that user"? Where is the utility which allows you to copy a
checked-off list of profile settings between two profiles (Desktop? no.
Start menu? yes. Toolbars? yes. Background? no. sound scheme? no. et
cetera et cetera...)
It doesn't exist.
Yet this is clearly a basic part of network
administrative function.
Most (NOT ALL!!)of what you wanted is stored in a
semi-centralized location, and you could have gotten a lot of it by simply
copying files from one user profile to the next, but that is still fraught
with headaches.
You should NOT have been put in that situation.
Microsoft software sucks, their "OS" is
anything but, and the only consolation is knowing that when BG winds up in
Hell, he's going to be using this borderline useless POS for all eternity.
:-S
BTW. Did I say I don't like Microsoft? (8-P
-- Nicholas Bretagna II Flad &; Associates of
Florida, Inc. 352-377-6884
"The only tyrant I accept in this world is the
still voice within" - Mohandas K. Gandhi -
Which is perhaps a bit further than
I would go, although there was a moment during the process when I shared
that view. Let the following
stand for about a hundred letters:
Jerry,
Just read your Monday, the 28th, column.
All Web writers are generally applauding the virtues of the
upcoming WIN-XP.
It appears the writers and masses will
accept the MS Forced Activation Policy without a
whimper.
I am appalled to say the
least !
What can we do ?
Some news group friends don't even know old Dos !
Is the computer actually "dumbing us down" ?
What say you on this matter besides "the learning
curve for Linux is steep" ?
Reader,
Richard A. Pazderski Sr. PE
Mr. Pournelle:
I always read you column wih interest and, for the
most part, I think you offer valuable insight into what most home/home
office/small business people go through trying to get their computers
setup. (here it comes) However, the short shrift you give to Windows XP's
licensing agreement (Mickey Mouse indeed!) irritates me. I can think of no
worse place to start with "rentalware" than one's operating
system. Office, perhaps but not the frigging operating system. It's just
too crucial. I have 5 computers at home, all of which came with a valid
Windows98 serial number. However, when I have to reinstall, I do so from
the same single CD using the same serial number. It's a pain in the neck
to have to dig through all of them and find the proper one for the proper
PC. Cripes, I bought the thing and (presumably) Compaq hasn't bootlegged
the software. It's horrific to think of what would happen to folks like me
when a rentalware OS comes to town. Anyways, I can't figure out why MS
cares too much about this. I'm not sure of the split but aren't most
copies of operating system sold with computers? I don't recall a rush on
copies of WindowsME at the local compusa (man, I wish we had a frye's).
Seems like the best place for this would be the
office suite. It sure would solve a lot of problems. I do a lot of
consulting and, in the course of my job, have to exchange many proposals
and presentations. The first question is always, "What version of
Office do you have?". In short, my view is applications - yes, OS -
no.
Regards,
Andy Harrover The Matrix Group
As I have said
to many, I have made my protestations to Microsoft, and I have made it
clear I find their new policy upsetting. On the other hand it warrants
nothing to get all lathered up over something that has not happened and
may not happen. It is column
time and I will have more to say in the next column. Meanwhile, I have to
say I am finding XP easy to work with. Not so good that I would put up
with stupid licensing policies to have it rather than Windows 2000, but
improved enough that if they work out that nonsense I will probably adopt
it. I do not recommend
anyone upgrade to Windows ME. If you have it on your system pre-installed
by a solid outfit it will be all right; but don't install it yourself. Stay
tuned.
Jerry,
Thanks for your entertaining and informative
columns. I also have a small home network (with ADSL in my case), going
out through an old P133 acting a gateway/firewall. I recently came across
a software-based "network appliance" approach to gateways - it's
called e-smith ( www.e-smith.org )
and installs in about 20 minutes (it's based on Red Hat 7). It has a
browser admin tool and is a very neat piece of work, and certainly cheaper
than the NetWinder you talked about, assuming one doesn't take out a
support contract.
Best wishes,
Des Dougan Director, Information and Computing
Services Vancouver Community College
ddougan@vcc.bc.ca
Thanks. I'll try to have a look. As
I said in the column, the Netwinder does nothing you can't do yourself;
the question is whether you want to take the trouble to learn how to do
it. If Microsoft continues
with the licensing policies they seem to be exploring, it is likely that a
lot of people will take the trouble to learn Linux. But everyone should
understand, they are embarking on a serious journey. It's not like a
simple upgrade of Windows... And
for something different:
I will relay a bit of folly that we used to engage
in as youths. We became quite adept, through trial and error, at throwing
.22 rimfire cartridges down onto the pavement so that they would fire. I
can attest that through the hearing of the sound of the slug ripping
through the leaves of the overhead trees, an unchambered round is capable
of firing the bullet at substantial velocities.
If you are feeling brave, lay a .22 round on a flat
surface and use a BB gun to ignite the primer. Let me know what you
discover. Don't point the bullet at your neighbor's house when you try
this... ;^)
Ken Wooley
Let me emphasize that playing with
live ammunition of any caliber is a foolish thing to do at best, and the
downside could be very serious injury. Don't do it, but then I don't think
I have any readers of any age so stupid as to need that advice.
Jerry,
Thanks for all the good cybex coverage. I'm so glad
you've let people know about the difference between a good (belkin) and a
great (cybex) kvm. You are the man.
So, you said your one complaint with the netwinder
was the slow response to telnet sessions. Well, I've been playing with
linux systems for a while, and I've noticed that if reverse-DNS lookup
isn't available for the originating session of a login, the telnet
sessions are verrrrrrry slow. This can be solved by pointing the linux
system at a dns server that knows about your local hosts, or by
configuring the local 'hosts' file (/etc/hosts) to describe your local
network.
If you get into your netwinder and add a line to
/etc/hosts like:
192.168.0.11 jerryistheman
(and your private network is a 192.168.0.x net and
your administration system is .11), then you will see _much_ faster telnet
sessions from .11.
There probably is some easier way to improve login
speeds by turning off revers-dns lookup, but I haven't found it yet, and
this solution works. The great thing about linux is that it is versatile.
The bad thing is that it is 'harder and take longer than you think to
learn it'. Ah well, rocket science isn't easy either. It's rather hard to
figure out if you need to speed up or slow down :)
Thanks, Josh
I will have to try it.
TOP |
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
