Reply to: Where's suity

[eek]

SY asking for help reminds me quite a lot of Wilmslow's "no filters" posting style about the fairer sex. You just can't believe someone would shoot themselves in the foot so deliberately, and so predictably. It's like some kind of bad slapstick routine.

My inkling is that he only posts here because he's banned from SO and EsExchange for being too stupid.

I think SO requires you to search and read before posting a question which is something Suity clearly is unwilling to do.

[d000hg]

SY asking for help reminds me quite a lot of Wilmslow's "no filters" posting style about the fairer sex. You just can't believe someone would shoot themselves in the foot so deliberately, and so predictably. It's like some kind of bad slapstick routine.

[eek]

And here we witness the mating ritual of the Suity. A display of quotes and beligerent responses arouses the ardour of the Eek a normally timid creature who is now excited by the opportunity of copulation with another species. We watch with baited breath to find what the offspring will be. Perhaps a Greater Deluded Bigger Cockess Dim Prawnium or the more common Freemonium Chunk Blower.

Do you mind. ATW's new girlfriend is more alluring and even then I wood(n't).

[MarillionFan]

tout suite

(FWIW, I agree, though)

Toot Sweets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HA!!!!!!!!!!!

[TheFaQQer]

I do love your solution of changing user context. My security hat asks why on earth would you want to do that but thankfully its not my issue. At any of the past 5 client cos your solution would result in you being out the door toot sweet but hey ho.

tout suite

(FWIW, I agree, though)

[MarillionFan]

And here we witness the mating ritual of the Suity. A display of quotes and beligerent responses arouses the ardour of the Eek a normally timid creature who is now excited by the opportunity of copulation with another species. We watch with baited breath to find what the offspring will be. Perhaps a Greater Deluded Bigger Cockess Dim Prawnium or the more common Freemonium Chunk Blower.

[fullyautomatix]

Never mind all that Suity, have you told the team the refactor the code to use cursors all round ? That is why they call in a BPM architect dont they ?

[eek]

If my 1st post was post 4 than that is still irrelevant to the discussion as your discussion in point 3 is about creating a crappy hack which introduces additional security issues.

Being polite I didn't want to tell you why the idea was an pile of poo which confirmed your crass incompetence rather I would tell you how to fix the actual issue so that everything worked correctly allowing all services to continue using their original windows account with appropriate security settings.

To be honest I don't know why I bothered.

[suityou01]

In post 2 I suggested something for you to do.

Post 2 was GeorgeB. Is this an admission of a sockie?

[QUOTE=eek;1467461]
In posts 3 and 8 you clearly stated that you'd hadn't tried my advice and rabbited on about other items which showed that you wanted to ignore my advice.
[QUOTE]

"La la la, eeks not listening to the OP as his solution is the only way"

I do love your solution of changing user context. My security hat asks why on earth would you want to do that but thankfully its not my issue. At any of the past 5 client cos your solution would result in you being out the door toot sweet but hey ho.

Please grow up you little tedious man.

Here's a hint Mr fat cry baby. When asking for advice after being told to do x at least confirm that you've tried that before continuing to try and look clever. There have been enough previous occasions where you've revealed that you wander off at tangents due to utter cluelessness.

Thanks for confirming it on General.

Still really, really need to grow up. A problem can have more than one solution. The person posting the problem may have very sound reasons for wanting to tackle it a certain way. If you follow the thread rather than wandering off on your own tangent then you don't waste your time or others by simply listening. Equally rather than getting on your high horse, you could have asked why I was attempting to change the user context rather than change the file permissions.

Had you done this, the answer would have been as follows :

Eek, this is not something I would normally do, but needs must. The box I am working on does need the file permissions changing but seeing as this is only supposed to be a simple proof of concept and all the code will be thrown away anway, and a change request on the file permissions would take over 3 days to be honoured by ClientCos IT support, and I have their blessing to make it work using impersonation I just need to get it working this way (for now).

[eek]

You seem to have a certain crass ignorance about you I find intriguing, eek. :

I do appreciate your help, but you have to understand that if you rush into posting without reading the whole thread then your help is limited.

In the instance you describe, a process running under a user account has problems accessing a portion of the file system, or I believe this was your diagnosis (which I agree with incidentally).

So there are really two options here :

a) Change the file permissions on the relevant portion of the file system.
b) Change the user context of the process to one that does have the relevant file permissions.

In post 1 I state the problem.
In post 3 I state the approach I am taking to resolve said problem.
In post 8 I reiterate the approach I am taking to resolve the problem.
In post 12 I re-reiterate the approach I am taking to resolve the problem.

You really must be a treasure to work with. I can just imagine you getting stroppy in meetings and putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la, I'm not listening" just because people don't do exactly what you say all of the time.

Just saying like.

In post 2 I suggested something for you to do. In posts 3 and 8 you clearly stated that you'd hadn't tried my advice and rabbited on about other items which showed that you wanted to ignore my advice.

I do love your solution of changing user context. My security hat asks why on earth would you want to do that but thankfully its not my issue. At any of the past 5 client cos your solution would result in you being out the door toot sweet but hey ho.

Here's a hint Mr fat cry baby. When asking for advice after being told to do x at least confirm that you've tried that before continuing to try and look clever. There have been enough previous occasions where you've revealed that you wander off at tangents due to utter cluelessness.

Thanks for confirming it on General.

[suityou01]

You should see my last comment. I didn't mind the actual question because I know people who've encountered the same issues over the years and Google is sod all help when you try and solve the issue. However his total ignorance and clueless arrogance is beyond redemption.

Unfortunately I can't but him on ignore as his attempts to not be the Frank Spencer of the contract world are essential reading.

You seem to have a certain crass ignorance about you I find intriguing, eek. :

I do appreciate your help, but you have to understand that if you rush into posting without reading the whole thread then your help is limited.

In the instance you describe, a process running under a user account has problems accessing a portion of the file system, or I believe this was your diagnosis (which I agree with incidentally).

So there are really two options here :

a) Change the file permissions on the relevant portion of the file system.
b) Change the user context of the process to one that does have the relevant file permissions.

In post 1 I state the problem.
In post 3 I state the approach I am taking to resolve said problem (by changing the user context).
In post 8 I reiterate the approach I am taking to resolve the problem (by changing the user context).
In post 9 I encourage you to re-read the thread before further making an arse of yourself.
In post 12 I re-reiterate the approach I am taking to resolve the problem (by changing the user context).

You really must be a treasure to work with. I can just imagine you getting stroppy in meetings and putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la, I'm not listening" just because people don't do exactly what you say all of the time.

Just saying like.

[Freamon]

Do you reckon I can get away with aMONGst

Maybe. You may even be ok with Scunthorpe.

[eek]

Just don't use the word when you tag his threads and you'll be ok.

Do you reckon I can get away with aMONGst

[Freamon]

Luckily if Ricky Gervais did not breach broadcasting rules by calling Susan Boyle a mong, Ofcom rules | Mail Online I'm safe to call Suity one.

Just don't use the word when you tag his threads and you'll be ok.

[eek]

Luckily as Ricky Gervais did not breach broadcasting rules by calling Susan Boyle a mong, Ofcom rules | Mail Online I'm safe to call Suity one.

FTFY