#73597 - 2003-03-05 05:53 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
Ok yes the 98 client is falling into that limitation. I don't know if it is worth trying to map it with the shorter share name that gets cutoff like with long filenames in dos. If I decide to not worry about 98 clients altogether how is that going to affect everyone else. The problem is I don't know how many 98 clients there are, probably only a small few. But if I run that utility that was created for me to run one time to set the logon script to users in an OU, the chances are that it may end up being a 98 client and I don't want them to be screwed up. It would be nice if there was a way for the script to detect a 98 client and just not run at all regardless if they had a logon.bat assigned to their user account.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73598 - 2003-03-05 05:56 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
The easiest and best solution is for you to correct the long share and group names. Shares can be easily changed and the groups can be renamed via script. [ 05. March 2003, 17:57: Message edited by: Howard Bullock ]
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73600 - 2003-03-05 05:58 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
Actually when I ran only that piece of code you posted I get this:
0 - The operation completed successfully. InGroup() = 0
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73601 - 2003-03-05 06:01 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
If it was possible to actually pay someone to write the damn script for me I would but I can't. I am basically finished and my boss is saying not to worry about the 98 clients but I don't want to hose them up if it just isn't going to work. What about that code result I posted? That was run on the 98 box.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73602 - 2003-03-05 06:01 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
Which would indicate that the user is NOT a member of the group. Is that what you expected? Is the group name correct? The two different test scripts show different group names. [ 05. March 2003, 18:02: Message edited by: Howard Bullock ]
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73603 - 2003-03-05 06:02 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
I am so so greatful for the help I have received up to this point. Everything I have done is basically due to the help of you guys and that is fantastic thank you.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73606 - 2003-03-05 06:08 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
Well we are not going to be able to change the share names because there are people currently using them the way they are and we are not ready to go live with this script domain wide yet. My boss/network administration says he really doesn't care about the script running on the 98 clients.
I ran that code ? "The value of InGroup(Mapping And Addressing) is : " + InGroup('Mapping And Addressing') and i got a result of = 1
I change the And to & and got a result of = 0
I believe the actual group name in AD is Mapping & Addressing.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73607 - 2003-03-05 06:14 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
A value of one (1) indicates the user is a member of the group. I think you need to get a better grip on what the group names actually are so that your script works as expected. The "AND" was copied from one of your posts. [ 05. March 2003, 18:14: Message edited by: Howard Bullock ]
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73608 - 2003-03-05 06:16 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
I still have no clue if you were successful or not with this test on the Win98 computer. You mentioned that you were affected by the limitation then you post your last item saying that my script returned a (1) meaning it worked. Where did it work? Where did it fail if at all. We are getting nowhere fast. [ 05. March 2003, 18:17: Message edited by: Howard Bullock ]
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73612 - 2003-03-05 06:25 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
Ok to recap this. I the group name in AD IS in fact Mapping & Addressing, it returns a result of 0 on my XP box and my 98 box.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73613 - 2003-03-05 06:26 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
And on the NT4 box everything works fine now so I guess whatever. You guys have been patient up to this point but now you are getting to be rude. As for the MCDBA/MCSA exam remark, Kixtart isn't even mentioned.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#73615 - 2003-03-05 06:33 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
Ok someone at my location is messing with me. Geez, ok the group name is Mapping And Addressing not the Ampersand. Grief as if I am not stressed enough already.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Glenn Barnas, NTDOC, Arend_, Jochen, Radimus, Allen, ShaneEP, Ruud van Velsen, Mart
|
0 registered
and 569 anonymous users online.
|
|
|