Prospet
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
 
Advanced search
MATCHING GROUPS



more...
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

found 19 articles for 0.302 sec
L'ultimo ko dell'America i tesori d'arte vanno all'estero I compratori sono russi e arabi. Nuove prospetive anche per gli artisti italiani dal nostro corrispondente MARIO CALABRESI Benefits Supervisor Sleeping di Lucien Freud è stato battuto a 33,6 milioni di dollari NEW YORK - La Storia ha cambiato direzione una mattina del febbraio 2004 a Manhattan. Quel giorno fu chiaro che il mondo     

Group: it.economia · Group Profile · Search for Prospet in it.economia
Author: .sergio.
Date: Aug 22, 2008 05:45

I haven't tested this, but minimally, the domain containing the TS Licensing Server needs to trust the domain containing the Terminal Server. But KB 279561 actually states that both domains need to trust each other, so it wouldn't amaze me if a 2-way trust is needed. But as Ratnesh explained, the clients don't need a trust relationship with the LS, so if you want to avoid having multiple
Show full article (7.50Kb)
Also, we are using per device TS CALs. "Vera Noest [MVP]" wrote: > Aaah, now I understand what you mean. > I never thought about the client devices, since they never have any > direct contact with the TS Licensing Server at all. I was only > thinking about the Terminal Server and the TS Licensing Server, > because the only communication is between these two server roles > (in Windows     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services · Group Profile · Search for Prospet in microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services
Author: Vera Noest [MVP]
Date: Jun 3, 2008 12:39

A bit more background. Our LS is in forest A and we do not want to move it to a workgroup. Both domains and TS servers are Server 2003 SP1. I am basing my decisions on http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=279561. I'm still looking for suggestions for the minimum Trust required. "Vera Noest [MVP]" wrote: Aaah, now I understand what you mean. I never thought about the client devices
Show full article (6.36Kb) · Show article thread
Aaah, now I understand what you mean. I never thought about the client devices, since they never have any direct contact with the TS Licensing Server at all. I was only thinking about the Terminal Server and the TS Licensing Server, because the only communication is between these two server roles (in Windows 2003). And now of course it makes sense to differentiate between 2003 and 2008     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services · Group Profile · Search for Prospet in microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services
Author: burgessb
Date: Jun 3, 2008 07:43

Sorry about the typos :( Well actaully i wrote it from the point on view of the client. Meaning Per Device: Client is the machine from which user are connecting. And that machine is not required to be any trust relationship with License Server Domain Per User: Client will be User ID. In that case Domian of that client have to be in trust relationship with License Server Domain
Show full article (5.02Kb) · Show article thread
Ratnesh, I don't think that I agree with what you say, but I might misunderstand what you mean, since there are obvious typo's in your post. You seem to differentiate between Windows 2003 and Windows 2008, but you've called them both 2008. You are also mixing up Per User and Per Device TS CALs. Per User TS CALs are actually never issued in Windows 2003, so there you have less requirements     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services · Group Profile · Search for Prospet in microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services
Author: burgessb
Date: Jun 3, 2008 07:38

Windows Server 2008 Terminal Servers - Per User Mode: Yes then you require trust relationship between Domain of License Server machine and other domain. Thing needs to be taken care (from point of view of License Server only) - License Server machine should be member of TSLS (Terminal Server license Server)
Show full article (5.26Kb) · Show article thread
On Apr 2, 8:47 pm, atsarisb...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Mar 28, 8:48 pm, jkeel_2...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 28, 12:30 pm, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai> > > wrote: > > > > The British Royal Family members married into Romanian Hohenzollern > > > royal family are alleged to have forfeited their inheritance due to > > > popery. > > > > What the hell are papists     

Group: microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services · Group Profile · Search for Prospet in microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services
Author: Vera Noest [MVP]
Date: Jun 1, 2008 02:59

On Mar 28, 8:48 pm, jkeel_2...@yahoo.com wrote: On Mar 28, 12:30 pm, Crown-Horned Snorkack <chornedsnork...@hush.ai> wrote: The British Royal Family members married into Romanian Hohenzollern royal family are alleged to have forfeited their inheritance due to popery. What the hell are papists doing ruling Romania - an Orthodox country? Are the other Houses -
Show full article (4.73Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services · Group Profile · Search for Prospet in microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services
Author: Ratnesh Yadav [MSFT]
Date: May 31, 2008 12:54

Show full article (3.71Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services · Group Profile · Search for Prospet in microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services
Author: Vera Noest [MVP]
Date: May 31, 2008 03:38

Show full article (3.04Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services · Group Profile · Search for Prospet in microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services
Author: Ratnesh Yadav [MSFT]
Date: May 30, 2008 13:00

Show full article (1.81Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: alt.talk.royalty · Group Profile · Search for Prospet in alt.talk.royalty
Author: jkeel_2001
Date: Apr 3, 2008 15:12

Show full article (8.50Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: alt.talk.royalty · Group Profile · Search for Prospet in alt.talk.royalty
Author: atsarisborn
Date: Apr 2, 2008 18:47

Show full article (6.77Kb) · Show article thread
1 · 2 · next