Rich44

Eh? Rooting phones is not a big issue for mobile phone providers (outside of MS and Apple enviro's) and in fact many see it as a way of selling more handsets. Look at Samsung who recently supplied Galaxy S2 handsets to the Cyanogen team so they could port CM7 to it, then look to HTC who confirmed they would unlock the boot loader on their new phones. Publically the phone manufacturers might not be seen to like phone ROM cooking (I avoid the use of the term hacking for the obvious negative connotations of the word) but certainly the Android suppliers like HTC and Samsung love it. It makes their device far more saleable to the people who don't like the idea of not being able to do what they want with it how they want and whilst Apple might publically moan about Jailbreaking it's massively helped with hardware sales. The only negative I can think of is for the app makers who rely on adverts for their free games when rooted you can use a custom HOSTS file and block all the adverts, apart from that I cannot think of a serious negative that would upset Google, HTC, Samsung and the like but I could easily be wrong... You only have to look at Modaco and XDA to see how fast development is happening for these 3rd party ROMs far far faster than the OEM will ever commit to and in fact many of these ROMs make the device infinitely more usable - Proxy support Android i'm looking at you! Whilst I am still running a stock ROM on my S2 I am running a custom kernel and rooted which allows me to do things I would not be otherwise able to do and makes the phone much better for "me". Samsung and HTC at least recognise that and realise it helps with sales otherwise they would not do what they have done. TBH this UEFI secure boot thing is nothing more than the latest shot across the bows and I wager it will come to nothing previous examples: PIII unique processor serial numbers - Outcry and option to disable added to BIOS options TPM platform - What happened to that? MS need to look at all these secure platforms and see what's happened to them: Xbox - hacked Xbox360 - hacked PS1/2/3 - hacked Apple OS X hardware check - hacked Blu-ray secure platform - hacked HDCP - hacked In short even if they do implement this and ram it down our throats (which won't happen due to Linux etc crowd fighting it) it'll be broken in very short order

Per user isn't going to work either if you think about it. Per user will give teachers who aren't fixed in one location (not many of these) printers that aren't in the room they're teaching in. so a Bilogy teacher using an IT room would not have the IT room printer...... I've been told it is possible with a combination of deploying them at OU level then using a per user login script to either set the correct printer or remove the ones that aren't suitable. It may not be possible with the GPO tools as provided by MS but you can do pretty much anything with the right series of scripts. I accept it's not possible with just deploying printers I was 99.999% certain that would be the case.

I'm sure part of this has been answered many times in the past (as per the search I looked through) but it's a slightly different take on the usual question (I think) Ok we have Print Manager Plus client Billing Edition which means I can set a quota up for students (ie give them a budget for printing) and for staff I can get them to use their departmental copier codes for print tracking to a department. To do this I need to install a copy of each printer twice as one will be set for students and their quota and the other set for staff ok so far? So I need to deploy printer by OU so that the correct printer goes to the correct machines (ie IT suite get the IT room printers) BUT I only want students to get the student printer and staff the staff printer. So I want to deploy by OU and user. I'm presuming I can do something like deploy with 2003 R2 print management then use a login script to make sure only the correct printer is present? anyone got any better ideas or a way of implementing this? Cheers