Search Results

Search found 3 results on 1 pages for 'andreyt'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • A proper way to create non-interactive accounts?

    - by AndreyT
    In order to use password-protected file sharing in a basic home network I want to create a number of non-interactive user accounts on a Windows 8 Pro machine in addition to the existing set of interactive accounts. The users that corresponds to those extra accounts will not use this machine interactively, so I don't want their accounts to be available for logon and I don't want their names to appear on welcome screen. In older versions of Windows Pro (up to Windows 7) I did this by first creating the accounts as members of "Users" group, and then including them into "Deny logon locally" list in Local Security Policy settings. This always had the desired effect. However, my question is whether this is the right/best way to do it. The reason I'm asking is that even though this method works in Windows 8 Pro as well, it has one little quirk: interactive users from "User" group are still able to see these extra user names when they go to the Metro screen and hit their own user name in the top-right corner (i.e. open "Sign out/Lock" menu). The command list that drops out contains "Sign out" and "Lock" commands as well as the names of other users (for "switch user" functionality). For some reason that list includes the extra users from "Deny logon locally" list. It is interesting to note that this happens when the current user belongs to "Users" group, but it does not happen when the current user is from "Administrators". For example, let's say I have three accounts on the machine: "Administrator" (from "Administrators", can logon locally), "A" (from "Users", can logon locally), "B" (from "Users", denied logon locally). When "Administrator" is logged in, he can only see user "A" listed in his Metro "Sign out/Lock" menu, i.e. all works as it should. But when user "A" is logged in, he can see both "Administrator" and user "B" in his "Sign out/Lock" menu. Expectedly, in the above example trying to switch from user "A" to user "B" by hitting "B" in the menu does not work: Windows jumps to welcome screen that lists only "Administrator" and "A". Anyway, on the surface this appears to be an interface-level bug in Windows 8. However, I'm wondering if going through "Deny logon locally" setting is the right way to do it in Windows 8. Is there any other way to create a hidden non-interactive user account?

    Read the article

  • Stable separation for two classes of elements in an array

    - by AndreyT
    Consider the following problem. We are given an array of elements belonging to one two classes: either red or blue. We have to rearrange the elements of the array so that all blue elements come first (and all red elements follow). The rearrangement must be done is stable fashion, meaning that the relative order of blue elements must be preserved (same for red ones). Is there a clever algorithm that would perform the above rearrangement in-place? A non-in place solution is, of course, straightforward. An obvious in-place solution would be to apply any stable sorting algorithm to the array. However, using a full-fledged sorting algorithm on an array intuitively feels like an overkill, especially taking into account the fact that we are only dealing with two classes of elements. Any ideas greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • gcc, strict-aliasing, and horror stories

    - by Joseph Quinsey
    In http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2906365/gcc-strict-aliasing-and-casting-through-a-union I asked whether anyone had encountered problems with union punning through pointers. So far, the answer seems to be No. This question is broader: do you have any horror stories about gcc and strict-aliasing? Background: Quoting from AndreyT's answer in http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2771023/c99-strict-aliasing-rules-in-c-gcc/2771041#2771041: "Strict aliasing rules are rooted in parts of the standard that were present in C and C++ since the beginning of [standardized] times. The clause that prohibits accessing object of one type through a lvalue of another type is present in C89/90 (6.3) as well as in C++98 (3.10/15). ... It is just that not all compilers wanted (or dared) to enforce it or rely on it." Well, gcc is now daring to do so, with its -fstrict-aliasing switch. And this has caused some problems. See, for example, the excellent article http://davmac.wordpress.com/2009/10/ about a Mysql bug, and the equally excellent discussion in http://cellperformance.beyond3d.com/articles/2006/06/understanding-strict-aliasing.html. Some other less-relevant links: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1225741/performance-impact-of-fno-strict-aliasing http://stackoverflow.com/questions/754929/strict-aliasing http://stackoverflow.com/questions/262379/when-is-char-safe-for-strict-pointer-aliasing http://stackoverflow.com/questions/725138/how-to-detect-strict-aliasing-at-compile-time So to repeat, do you have a horror story of your own? Problems not indicated by -Wstrict-aliasing would, of course, be preferred. And other C compilers are also welcome.

    Read the article

1