Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of \$9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

 Judge Schnoopy Nov 2, 2005 dont even TRY it, pal According to logic statements though, T or F is true since one of the criteria is met. Similarly, ~T or ~F is still true. True in this case is getting the printer mapped so the or statements shouldn't work. User A gets the printer for meeting "or the user isn't user B" requirement. Unless GPO is hosed up and processes this as ~(true or false), getting false. It should require an and statement since ~true and ~false is false. I've been struggling trying to wrap my head around this all day. But this thread has pointed me in the right direction. User A and user B are in a new security group, printer is applied to users not in the group. No need for two statements at all. # ? Jun 6, 2014 02:16
 Adbot ADBOT LOVES YOU # ? Jan 28, 2021 12:59
 Hiyoshi Jun 27, 2003 The jig is up! As said before, you want not User A or User B, or ~(User A OR User B). Not User A and User B, or ~(User A AND User B), will always evaluate to true because there will never exist an individual user that is both User A and User B. Think of it with a few tests: ~(User A OR User B) 1. User A: ~(1 OR 0) = ~1 = 0 = False (i.e., don't apply policy) 2. User B: ~(0 OR 1) = ~1 = 0 = False (i.e., don't apply policy) 3. User C: ~(0 OR 0) = ~0 = 1 = True (i.e., apply policy) ~(User A AND User B) 1. User A: ~(1 AND 0) = ~0 = 1 = True (i.e., apply policy) 2. User B: ~(0 AND 1) = ~0 = 1 = True (i.e., apply policy) 3. User C: ~(0 AND 0) = ~0 = 1 = True (i.e., apply policy) You may be meaning to say not User A and not User B, or (~User A AND ~User B), which is logically equivalent to ~(User A OR User B): (~User A AND ~User B) 1. User A: (~1 AND ~0) = (0 AND 1) = 0 = False (i.e., don't apply policy) 2. User B: (~0 AND ~1) = (1 AND 0) = 0 = False (i.e., don't apply policy) 3. User C: (~0 AND ~0) = (1 AND 1) = 1 = True (i.e., apply policy) # ? Jun 6, 2014 03:46
 Judge Schnoopy Nov 2, 2005 dont even TRY it, pal Ok cool, thanks. I've got the understanding of the logic down, it was just a question of how GPO processes two statements. If they were processed individually (~a and ~b) I need a different solution than if they are processed together as ~(a or b). The way it's worded on the screen implies they are processed individually because there is a not in front of both cases. It doesn't make sense that GPO would take two not statements, group them as positives, then add the negative to the group as the second example shows. # ? Jun 6, 2014 11:19
 CuddleChunks Sep 18, 2004 This is a really useful thread. Thanks for all the helpful info, folks! # ? Sep 10, 2014 18:23

#### Wizard of the Deep posted:

You won't see any serious slowdowns (under normal conditions) for adding another group or two

This is how we ended up with 6 times as many groups as users

 Adbot ADBOT LOVES YOU # ? Jan 28, 2021 12:59

#### peak debt posted:

This is how we ended up with 6 times as many groups as users

I think at a 6:1 group:user ratio, we've stopped talking about "normal conditions".