Well then please provide more details of what you're talking about. Perhaps I'm missing something here that you're aware of and I'm willing to learn new things.
Just saying that regardless of the technology used behind the scenes as far as I know they all still use a hierarchical method for the file system.
If you're talking about DFS that too uses a hierarchical method of file management. So not trying to be coy - trying to understand what you're getting at that is so much better. Unix, FBSD, Linux, Macintosh, AS400, Windows all use a similar method of file storage relationship they each may have a little bit different method of achieving it but in the end they all are quite similar and maintain some type of hierarchical storage.
I don't see where by giving or not giving a user their own home share is "Old School". If that type or style of folder management provides the needs of the company then what's wrong with it? On Terminal Server a user needs a home folder as well.
So please provide more details on what you mean. Thanks.
What games? Don't trust your ACEs?
Thinking about what you said further - Are you saying the SHARES are not required due to the ability of of 2000/XP/Vista to do deep mapping without it? Well then I'll agree on that point but there are also times when management and IT doesn't want other users to see or know these other folders exist and hidden shares are not a guarantee but do allow at least some level of hiding in plain site. If Windows was more like Novell then it wouldn't be an issue, but it's not. Politics is always a part of business and Technology alone won't get rid of it.
