Excel Locking Documents Sporadically -- File Server
-
@wirestyle22 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
So I noticed indexing was enabled. I disabled it.
I have not been able to reproduce the problem. Might be too early to judge but after opening over 60 documents I have not run into the issue.
I find the indexing system to almost always be bad.
I never enable indexing. I have no idea why it is enabled. I must have not noticed it when I started here. I will keep everyone updated once I test this further.
On by default.
-
What error message does the user get when they try and open one that has this problem?
Oh, never mind - read only. One minute.
-
http://www.ozzu.com/mswindows-forum/word-files-saved-network-randomly-opening-read-only-t75734.html
"I checked. Before we tried opening a file, nothing was listed as being open. Once we tried to open a file. The file opened in word as read only. When I checked the open files then, it showed the file being accessed. But not by her, it was showing being accessed by one of the service accounts we have set up for our fax server. I checked and she is logged in as herself, this is very strange. "
"Double check her machine to make sure the fax service is not set as her default printer."
-
@MattSpeller said:
http://www.ozzu.com/mswindows-forum/word-files-saved-network-randomly-opening-read-only-t75734.html
"I checked. Before we tried opening a file, nothing was listed as being open. Once we tried to open a file. The file opened in word as read only. When I checked the open files then, it showed the file being accessed. But not by her, it was showing being accessed by one of the service accounts we have set up for our fax server. I checked and she is logged in as herself, this is very strange. "
"Double check her machine to make sure the fax service is not set as her default printer."
Are you shitting me right now Matt? Hold on. Sigh.
-
Nah. Her default printer is an HP 1350.
-
-
@MattSpeller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
Nah. Her default printer is an HP 1350.
I tried
Appreciate the effort. For the record she told me it said "read only" but it actually says "open by another user". She was making an assumption which I specifically asked her about and she gave me false information. The thing is there is no other open version of the file from the servers point of view. I think this might be a case of excel being closed improperly so to test this I had her start excel, open the file within excel, close the file in excel (while keeping excel running) and then open a new file. Rinse and repeat. We have not had this issue occur since then. We have probably opened at least 150 documents up until this point. So my question is where do i go from here?
@MattSpeller tagging you so you know I edited this.
-
My boss has gotten these errors many times over the years. I look around find nothing wrong and go about my day. No other user has ever complained about it, even the ones that I know use Excel a fair amount.
I'll be checking on the indexing option as well.
Question - indexing on the server or on the workstation?
indexing a network share I don't think is on from a workstation perspective by default - or am I mistaken?
-
@wirestyle22 said:
Appreciate the effort. For the record she told me it said "read only" but it actually says "open by another user". She was making an assumption which I specifically asked her about and she gave me false information.
Dictionary Entry for User: "One who lies about trivial items for which there is no reason to refuse accurate information."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
Appreciate the effort. For the record she told me it said "read only" but it actually says "open by another user". She was making an assumption which I specifically asked her about and she gave me false information.
Dictionary Entry for User: "One who lies about trivial items for which there is no reason to refuse accurate information."
what's amazing, if you them into a lie detector, they would pass saying the first thing because they don't care enough to accurately report the problem.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
Appreciate the effort. For the record she told me it said "read only" but it actually says "open by another user". She was making an assumption which I specifically asked her about and she gave me false information.
Dictionary Entry for User: "One who lies about trivial items for which there is no reason to refuse accurate information."
what's amazing, if you them into a lie detector, they would pass saying the first thing because they don't care enough to accurately report the problem.
That would be an interesting test. It also suggests that they are sociopaths as that is what that means - that they do evil because they have no conscious.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
Appreciate the effort. For the record she told me it said "read only" but it actually says "open by another user". She was making an assumption which I specifically asked her about and she gave me false information.
Dictionary Entry for User: "One who lies about trivial items for which there is no reason to refuse accurate information."
what's amazing, if you them into a lie detector, they would pass saying the first thing because they don't care enough to accurately report the problem.
That would be an interesting test. It also suggests that they are sociopaths as that is what that means - that they do evil because they have no conscious.
Is it really evil in that case?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
Appreciate the effort. For the record she told me it said "read only" but it actually says "open by another user". She was making an assumption which I specifically asked her about and she gave me false information.
Dictionary Entry for User: "One who lies about trivial items for which there is no reason to refuse accurate information."
what's amazing, if you them into a lie detector, they would pass saying the first thing because they don't care enough to accurately report the problem.
That would be an interesting test. It also suggests that they are sociopaths as that is what that means - that they do evil because they have no conscious.
Is it really evil in that case?
Are you suggesting that serial killers are not evil because evil requires a level of caring? An interesting argument. I'm going to go with.. yes. Very evil.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
Appreciate the effort. For the record she told me it said "read only" but it actually says "open by another user". She was making an assumption which I specifically asked her about and she gave me false information.
Dictionary Entry for User: "One who lies about trivial items for which there is no reason to refuse accurate information."
what's amazing, if you them into a lie detector, they would pass saying the first thing because they don't care enough to accurately report the problem.
That would be an interesting test. It also suggests that they are sociopaths as that is what that means - that they do evil because they have no conscious.
Is it really evil in that case?
Are you suggesting that serial killers are not evil because evil requires a level of caring? An interesting argument. I'm going to go with.. yes. Very evil.
Yep, that's what I'm saying. If all of humaity didn't care, would it be evil then? I don't think so.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
Appreciate the effort. For the record she told me it said "read only" but it actually says "open by another user". She was making an assumption which I specifically asked her about and she gave me false information.
Dictionary Entry for User: "One who lies about trivial items for which there is no reason to refuse accurate information."
what's amazing, if you them into a lie detector, they would pass saying the first thing because they don't care enough to accurately report the problem.
That would be an interesting test. It also suggests that they are sociopaths as that is what that means - that they do evil because they have no conscious.
Is it really evil in that case?
Are you suggesting that serial killers are not evil because evil requires a level of caring? An interesting argument. I'm going to go with.. yes. Very evil.
Yep, that's what I'm saying. If all of humaity didn't care, would it be evil then? I don't think so.
But they do care by the nature of reporting the issue. If they didn't care, it would never have come up.
-
It's a separation thing - I don't see it as black and white as you do. But I get you point.
-
@Dashrender said:
It's a separation thing - I don't see it as black and white as you do. But I get you point.
You always say that like I said something black and white and that it is a "me" thing. I think it is the opposite. You see someone doing something malicious and come up with all these reasons why they get a blanket pass no matter what they've done or why. Why is my thing a "me" thing and always "black or white" and your thing always the grey area and not a "you" thing?
If anything, I see the opposite. You are acting like evil doesn't exist at all. that the world is pure white. I'm saying that they did something evil, they had motivation. Come up with any scenario where they weren't doing something evil - you probably can't because they went through effort to hurt others. Effort to cause pain. And willing to hurt themselves to do it, too.
You can't argue that they don't care because they spent effort.
I'd say you are being black and white, not considering all of the ways in which they spent effort to make everyone less happy. It's more grey, and grey is the ranges of evil. And I think most people would see "not caring about other people" as part of the grey scale of evil.
-
@Dashrender said:
It's a separation thing - I don't see it as black and white as you do. But I get you point.
What I see as black and white is... if you have grey in the picture and the grey represents evil, you have evil. You see someone being actively malicious, but have a personal guide of "well, you have to be 'this' evil to be called evil." Yes, if the question is, do I see that the action is evil regardless of the "level of evil" then it is evil.
But I see you as being black and white too... you have, I think, admitted that they are evil. So, black and white. Just you then further define another point of "how much evil before you will admit it". So your result is still black and white, but instead of "is or isn't evil", you use "is evil enough for me to admit it or not" as the dividing line.
You give a fudge factor of "clearly they were malicious, but I won't call the action evil for some reason." Why, I have no idea. but I don't see how it introduces more grey, it's just as black or white. It's just, I'd say less useful. Because you seeing some lying as okay and not bad. You see some spite as okay but not bad. You see hurting others intentionally as okay as long as it isn't too much. I see where you would call that grey, but I don't really see that as true. You are just moving the line to where you don't have to face the fact that people need to be held accountable.
Like stealing candy bars is different than stealing cars. The scale is different, the morality is not.
-
It's really the same issue as the vendor thread that had to be locked today. You could say that what they did "refuse to be accountable for falsely reporting errors" isn't a big deal. And alone, it certainly isn't. What is the issue is that they went on to claim that correct reporting is pointless and that just lying about errors isn't a problem and, even bigger, that they would throw away their credibility on something so trivial. If they are unwilling to do things well or face criticism on something trivial, how will they react to something important?
Likewise, if someone will lie through their teeth about a file being opened where it hurts them just because they are so lazy that they will waste your time for fun or their own entertainment... doesn't that make them more likely to steal your car or kill your cat if they are confident that they won't get caught? It's one thing to lie for your personal gain, it's not good, but at least there is a motivation that might offset the ethics - like you get caught stealing and you panic to not face the music so you lie that you didn't do it. That's bad, but you are doing it for self preservation. But lying and being willing to hurt yourself just for the pleasure of huring others, no matter how small the issue is, might be trivial in the ramification perspective, but is huge in the "what does this say about their motivations" perspective.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
It's a separation thing - I don't see it as black and white as you do. But I get you point.
What I see as black and white is... if you have grey in the picture and the grey represents evil, you have evil. You see someone being actively malicious, but have a personal guide of "well, you have to be 'this' evil to be called evil." Yes, if the question is, do I see that the action is evil regardless of the "level of evil" then it is evil.
But I see you as being black and white too... you have, I think, admitted that they are evil. So, black and white. Just you then further define another point of "how much evil before you will admit it". So your result is still black and white, but instead of "is or isn't evil", you use "is evil enough for me to admit it or not" as the dividing line.
You give a fudge factor of "clearly they were malicious, but I won't call the action evil for some reason." Why, I have no idea. but I don't see how it introduces more grey, it's just as black or white. It's just, I'd say less useful. Because you seeing some lying as okay and not bad. You see some spite as okay but not bad. You see hurting others intentionally as okay as long as it isn't too much. I see where you would call that grey, but I don't really see that as true. You are just moving the line to where you don't have to face the fact that people need to be held accountable.
Like stealing candy bars is different than stealing cars. The scale is different, the morality is not.
I wasn't on board with this whole post until the very last line. You're right the morality isn't different - so talking about the accountability - rarely do we IT folks find ourselves in a position to be able to hold these people accountable to reporting things truthfully and accurately.
If I could send a nurse home for the day because she reported something wrong - damn - it wouldn't be long before that would no longer be a problem. Sadly management doesn't see the value in that, which seems ridiculous when you consider one of their primary jobs is accurately recording data into medical charts.
