Admin lockdown option on Settings

[jonathanrswift]

I'm a long-time Everything user, and have recently started a job at a company with especially restrictive IT policies.

In short, they are not OK with the whole C: drive being indexed. I would be permitted to have Everything installed, with the "Include only:" settings controlled, but, it doesn't appear to be possible to lock the settings such that a non-admin cannot edit them.

I have looked into making the Everything.ini file read-only, but a non-admin user is still able to edit settings in the UI and see the file/folder names of the whole drive (although changes don't persist through a software restart).

I even considered developing a watcher service to restart Everything and replace the .ini whenever it was detected as modified or deleted (i.e. when the user changes something in Settings), but IT then pointed out to me that a user could load their own custom settings by launching Everything with the command

Code: Select all

Everything.exe -config "path of new ini"

Would it be possible to create a 'deployable' version of Everything, where the settings can be locked down in some way for non-admin users?

Thanks!

[raccoon]

Search the forum for "Group Policy" which adds support for system admins to restrict Everything settings externally through Windows Group Policies.

Here is the Group Policy documentation. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11948
^ This is the main document of assurance your IT guy will want to read. You should make up a template to present them.

See also this post. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=12144&p=49900#p49900
And this post. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=12144&p=49900#p50128

These are the INI settings and what they do. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9994

[jonathanrswift]

Thanks - this looks great!

Of course, an Alpha release isn't going to be let through the system, but it's heartening to know that my problem is already solved in the new version.

Now we wait...

[raccoon]

Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta... they're all the same. It's not like it will destroy your data. But even if it did, no liability regardless of the versioning name.

[jonathanrswift]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but not sure the IT department will agree.