Re: Expanding on KB 244600?
- From: "Roger Abell [MVP]" <mvpNoSpam@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:32:04 -0700
"Will" <westes-usc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rdidnQQ94sqrvGvZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Roger Abell [MVP]" <mvpNoSpam@xxxxxxx> wrote in messageLet's hope the docs are further improved, as seems to happen
news:OLXcubEzGHA.4232@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As I said to you before, I am waiting to see how much one does get to
vary
the Longhorn core server install with later selected/added features. You
will
like changes in Longhorn for all server installs however in this regard.
I would even settle for a "fat" system where we could explicitly shut
things
off, and where there was *DOCUMENTATION* about *all* of the potential side
effects of turning off various subsystems.
with each major release. However, the new server install does
pretty much what you want, except in reverse, i.e. if you do not
state the role is to be used those are left out from the "flattened"
base system. You are right, that clear doc of all then (doc release
time) known exposures / side-effects due to adding a role would
be most welcome. Believe it or not, things are vastly improved
over NT 4 days when the best source of info came from reading
the SDKs and dev docs.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: ophcrack v2 :|
- Next by Date: Re: Object Access Audit Policy for a Domain
- Previous by thread: Re: ophcrack v2 :|
- Next by thread: batch file share Permissions w2k
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
