For all of us who still redirect "My Documents" to a UNC network location; What would be a better method to force the backup of a user's documents and yet still provide a user quota on the amount of data they utilize?
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM, William Robbins <[email protected]>wrote: > Thanks again good sir! :) > > > - WJR > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Webster <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Here is my English slang lesson from James:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Pants = rubbish**** >> >> **** >> >> A bit pants = a bit rubbish**** >> >> **** >> >> The official line on its usage...**** >> >> **** >> >> *It has been an all-purpose term of disapproval among young people in >> the UK during the middle to late nineties. It first turned up in print in >> 1994, in pieces that indicate it was popularised by DJs on the BBC’s radio >> pop channel, Radio 1, most probably by Simon Mayo, though the finger is >> often pointed at Zoë Ball. ... But there’s evidence that the word in this >> sense is somewhat older, and that it comes from student slang. Graham >> Diamond, of the Oxford English Dictionary, tells me that he came across it >> at university about two years earlier, and actually used it in slogans on >> posters advertising bands around January 1993.***** >> >> There's not really many bits of English slang I can think of that replace >> words such as pathetic - you hear kids these days calling things "lame", >> but to be fair, I don't think you could go much further wrong than the >> aforementioned "pants". "Pear-shaped" means a disaster, which you also >> might find appropriate. "Piss-poor" is another good term for something >> rubbish (although possibly mildly offensive). "Naff" isn't bad either >> (although it means mildly rubbish, rather than completely). "Bollocks" can >> also mean bad, in opposition to "dog's bollocks" which means fantastic.** >> ** >> >> ** ** >> >> I also asked about the phrase “ugly red-headed step child” and was told >> to stay a long way away from that phrase over there lest I wind up in jail! >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thanks**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> Webster**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *William Robbins >> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 9:36 AM >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Home drives**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I'm stealing that. So is pants the operative, or does it have to be "bit >> pants? :)**** >> >> >> **** >> >> >> - WJR**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:39 AM, James Rankin <[email protected]> >> wrote:**** >> >> That's a bit pants then (that means *rubbish*, for all you Americans out >> there - except Webster who has been thoroughly educated in British slang). >> Yet another reason to manage the GPO stuff through AppSense and take it >> away from the GPO engine itself.**** >> >> **** >> >> Cheers,**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> JR**** >> >> On 10 May 2013 12:31, Webster <[email protected]> wrote:**** >> >> That is my understanding.**** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Webster**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *James Rankin >> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 6:28 AM **** >> >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Home drives**** >> >> **** >> >> What, you mean if you set a home drive or profile path it puts it into >> synchronous mode regardless of where it was set?**** >> >> On 10 May 2013 12:24, Webster <[email protected]> wrote:**** >> >> From what I found out it applies whether the settings are done via ADUC >> or GPO/GPP and regardless of Windows version.**** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Webster**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *James Rankin >> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 6:15 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Home drives**** >> >> **** >> >> Nice one....Ok, so that's all for WinXP and 2003 though.**** >> >> **** >> >> Does anyone know offhand how it behaves when ADUC Profile stuff is set >> for Win7/2008R2? I'm going to go digging but seeing as though it's Friday >> afternoon and I'm stuffed full of lunch I guess I'll see if anyone can >> chime in and save me the effort :-)**** >> >> **** >> >> Cheers,**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> JR**** >> >> On 10 May 2013 12:05, Webster <[email protected]> wrote:**** >> >> Yes, that was a discussion a good while back by Bob Free. March 9, 2012 >> to be exact.**** >> >> **** >> >> We had a PSS PFE onsite recently for an AD engagement and we were >> discussing slow boots during a break in the action and he brought up >> something I had never heard of before.**** >> >> **** >> >> I was always under the assumption that we had what is known as Fast Logon >> Optimization on our XP systems that allows GPOs to process asynchronously >> in the background.**** >> >> **** >> >> He told us that it is disabled in our environment because we use the >> profile settings to map homeDir and specify login script. **** >> >> **** >> >> Basically anything that is set on the Profile tab in ADUC is considered >> legacy NT behavior and disables logon optimization. I had heard before that >> roaming profiles or software installation policies disabled it but this was >> news to me. I played around with my account on an old XP box and it rang >> true, never got around to looking into it further or on WIN7.**** >> >> **** >> >> FWIW, YMMV J**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Ken Schaefer replied:**** >> >> **** >> >> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=GPO+background+processing+AD+Profile+Logon+Script >> **** >> >> first link describes the Win XP behaviour that Bob mentions.**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Thread is (homedrive)**** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Webster**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *James Rankin >> *Sent:* Friday, May 10, 2013 4:28 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [NTSysADM] Home drives**** >> >> **** >> >> Just following on from some of the comments yesterday, in this age of >> UNC-redirected libraries, variables and system folders, is there really any >> need for a home drive to be mapped at all? Surely we should just now be >> able to get away with a "home area" that our folders are redirected to? >> Interestingly enough, Folder Redirection GPOs can't be pointed at a drive >> letter since XP/2003, it has to be a UNC path.**** >> >> **** >> >> I just did a bit of an audit on my own behaviour and found that I simply >> click on My Documents, Downloads, etc. to access my files. There's very >> little interaction with the "home drive" at all, I just click the links and >> I'm into the network area.**** >> >> **** >> >> There's also the thought about people who define the home folder through >> ADUC on the Profile tab, didn't I read somewhere (possibly on this list) >> that defining *anything *in the Profile tab slows down Group Policy >> processing? If anyone knows if there's a documented article on this I'd be >> grateful for a link to it.**** >> >> **** >> >> Anyway, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts regarding the home >> drive situation, it would be nice to get a broader view of it.**** >> >> **** >> >> Cheers,**** >> >> **** >> >> >> >> -- >> *James Rankin* >> Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) >> http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk**** >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *James Rankin* >> Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) >> http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk**** >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *James Rankin* >> Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) >> http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk**** >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *James Rankin* >> Technical Consultant (ACA, CCA, MCTS) >> http://appsensebigot.blogspot.co.uk**** >> >> ** ** >> > >
