Chello <> rambled:
>
> ms should at least provide the possibility to analyze what went wrong
> in the test. if this would be possible, nobody would need braindumps.
No. If people took the time to know what they were doing, they wouldn't need
braindumps. Although I do agree with your sentiment that MS should provide a
more comprehensive look at where you went wrong, but without spoonfeeding
you (ie, "You got question 27 wrong! You know, the one about sp_denylogin!")
> also an example from todays test:
> DOMAIN\Julia has login in SQL Server and DB (with permissions set).
> you want to deny login to julia, but retain permissions:
> a.)sp_revokedbacces 'Julia'
> b.)sp_denylogin 'Julia' (But it must be DOMAIN\Julia!!!!!)
>
> b is correct although i have choosen a, as b command would simply not
> be possible. a actually would remove the permissions, but the another
> command would simply produce an error an do nothing.
Why would b) produce an error? sp_denylogin does exactly what you want, and
with the parameter of the username. The question said nothing about local
accounts, and besides, giving 'Julia' a local account on your SQL Server
probably isn't the smartest thing in the world. The question already told
you that 'Julia' is a domain account. So what's the problem?
> so sometimes you have to check for every word in the questions (least
> adminstratove
> effor, fasted performance), or even between the lines and next
> question everything
> is not so important.
Well, if you didn't read the question, that's not MS's fault, is it?
--
KB
MCNGP #26
When a girl walks in with a itty bitty waist and a round thing in your
face, you get
www.mcngp.com.