@nerdydad said in AIM Shutting down:
Used trillian so that I could have AIM, yahoo messenger, ICQ, and MSN Messenger all tied into one app.
Ha I used Pidgin at my last job and was able to tie in my wife's AIM account and talk to her throughout the day. My old boss blocked Skype and several other websites. He would also always be watching and call the center if he seen you on your personal phone for too long. Glad I got out of there.
Ha-Ha-lairious! Where do you do put the straw? Great stuff seriously.
@Dashrender said in User naming convention:
@Count-Chocula said in User naming convention:
@scottalanmiller said in User naming convention:
@Count-Chocula said in User naming convention:
If it wasn't for the fact that they have NEVER moved disabled users and there's 261 of them....
Maybe start with cleaning that up
That's the goal! Next I'm moving to GP. Right now they have a logon script that installs every printer on the network. This is going to be a great place to grow I think.
Logon scripts eh? GPP for the win.
I plan on implementing this for the printers and shares. It's been a busy two weeks trying to learn position, policy, and people. My ultimate goal is to rid this network of the logon script and filter the access to security groups. If this is either too much work, or the wrong approach please let me know.
@scottalanmiller said in User naming convention:
@Count-Chocula said in User naming convention:
If it wasn't for the fact that they have NEVER moved disabled users and there's 261 of them....
Maybe start with cleaning that up
That's the goal! Next I'm moving to GP. Right now they have a logon script that installs every printer on the network. This is going to be a great place to grow I think.
@scottalanmiller said in User naming convention:
@thwr said in User naming convention:
@Count-Chocula said in User naming convention:
- Does anyone else thinks this matters from an end users standpoint? (I've asked and have gotten mixed results)
I've seen that a few times with very common names like Hans Müller or John Smith. Users actually may feel uncomfortable, but this is even more annoying when it comes to the mail address than to their username. It's odd to tell a user that his new mail address will be [email protected]. There's no real solution except for adding a department, like [email protected] or even a mail subdomain like [email protected]. Adding middle names may actually help.
- Am I wrong to push my thoughts for growth and automation, despite what others may think of their "cloned" username including management?
- Is there already some BP that I'm missing?
My gut tells me to standup for my opinion and push the #'s in the case of duplicates. What do you all think?
What else could you do? Maybe give everyone a generated name made from random alphas (AWESOME\rkvzhs), but this will introduce a whole new problem: "Hey, Kelly here from XXX. Uhm, you know, I forgot my username again?"
This is why I always tell companies to use my full name. There is almost never a problem if they do that. I think that all companies, of any size, need a human involved at this point. Names like jsmith3 are impersonal and unfair. It means that jsmith (which could be john smith, josh smith, jay smith, jorge smith, javier smith, jarl smith, Jonathan smith, jacob smith, jane smith, jill smith, janet smith, jerry smith, janelle smith, and so on and on) could be reasonably one of the first people in the company but get a shitty email while some new hire that will only stay a month gets a sweet pristine name just for not having a common name or initial.
I think having humans who get involved and do logical things makes the most sense. It's a bad thing to automate.
If it wasn't for the fact that they have NEVER moved disabled users and there's 261 of them I find that at least automating the first time is going to be required. I don't have time to manually track down all of them. I just started with this company so lot's of things to improve. Going forward I'm creating a process for termed users that we would have time to manually deal with. So following that logic I think I'll just use the middle initial and won't worry about automating the entire process just the first run.
Just trying to get some feedback on a really useless non issue. So it's being thrown around at my new company that using numbers in the SAM account name for duplicate names makes some users feel "unimportant" or like a clone of another user. From my limited experience with scripting it makes more sense to drop the # in the name so I can easily cleanup AD. eg. John Smith (jsmith) James Smith (jsmith1). It's easy (at least to me) to append a 1 or 2 in Powershell while searching for users in AD to manipulate settings. However it seems like too much work to have to ask HR to add the middle name in the Excel report they produce. Just so I can change my code to reflect that middle initial if, in the case there is a duplicate name, that the valid user isn't changed or removed. I'm getting the opportunity to make the decision in how this plays out, but I seem to be getting some flak because I want to do it the most logical way I can think of for growth when it comes to automating this process. My question to all of you is three part.
My gut tells me to standup for my opinion and push the #'s in the case of duplicates. What do you all think?
-The Count
