I did a little more testing today. Setup: 1) Target currently deserves RichCopy as an App Deployment. 2) Uninstalled RichCopy, App Deployment Re-eval cycle, and it reinstalled. Testing App Deployment Disabling: 1) Sent the Baseline to disable both App Deployments and legacy Software Distribution. 2) policy refreshes; confirmed the baseline ran. Waited a few minutes. 3) From Zanders' ClientCenter, confirmed I didn't "see" any applications available. 4) Uninstalled RichCopy, then a bunch of App Deployment re-eval cycles--and it did NOT reinstall.
Remember, the target is still in the collection where it deserves RichCopy--it's just refusing to install it anymore. Testing re-enabling: 1) Removed the deployment of the baseline for disabling, and deployed the baseline to remove the local policy. 2) a bunch of policy refreshes, and from the applet, forced an immediate evaluation. Within about 3 minutes, RichCopy reinstalled. So I think it does what *I* want it to do anyway. :) As a small reminder, if; 2 years from now you are wondering... "OK, who actually has these local policies? how do I figure that out?" -- http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/skissinger/archive/2009/07/06/hardware-inventory-mof-edit-for-local-policies.aspx I'm planning on blogging these baselines within the next day or so (other priorities permitting). Sherry Kissinger On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:17 AM, Eswar Koneti <[email protected]> wrote: OK,i did some testing for legacy packages,it seems to be working for me too. after the compliance,i tried deploying the legacy app ,policyagent.log receives the info about the deployment and execmgr.log generating yellow messages saying 'Can not find client site settings' . but the deployments which are already made available in software center do not affect with this change.users can run the apps from software center without any problem. Regards, Eswar Koneti www.eskonr.com Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:56:30 -0700 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mssms] Is it possible to have a Maitenance Window that prevents any deployments? To: [email protected] Niall kindly forwarded me his Word Document, and using that, I made up two Baselines (and 4 configItems) Attached are the baselines which "should" have 2 CIs each; if you were to import them into your environment. I've only tested these quickly in a lab, against 1 client. But that client did refuse to do any application deployment or traditional package/program/advert deployment when it had the two things Disabled; and when I took that baseline away and instead assigned the "remove the local policies" one, that client seemed to want to do apps and adverts again. You would only deploy 1 baseline (not both); primarily you'd deploy the one to Disable SWDist and AppDeployments. The other baseline would be for "oops, I didn't really mean to target "All Systems"... now how do I undo that?" You'd stop the Baseline deployment of the Disable, and instead target the Removal of the local policies one. But it would be great if someone on this list would test the baselines in their lab (or "when you test, you test in production" -- whichever works for you!) . Once it seems to work for more than just me, Niall or I can blog it out there. Sherry Kissinger On Monday, August 25, 2014 9:11 AM, Niall Brady <[email protected]> wrote: I've got a word doc, never blogged it and never finished it, to stop ALL software deployments you'll want to configure something to stop applications from installaing also, this only disables SWD the list stopped me from sending it as it's too big, email me if you want a copy. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Niall Brady <[email protected]> wrote: here's what i did, never blogged it and never finished it, to stop ALL software deployments you'll want to configure something to stop applications from installaing also, this only disables SWD > > > > >On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Niall Brady <[email protected]> wrote: > >i started blogging about disabling SWD and other functionality via CI/CB and >got great success with that, however it only disabled that functionality >(other functionality could still work) however the same ideaology could be >used for disabling the other functionality... >> >>I never completed it but happy to share if anyone wants it >> >> >> >> >>On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Daniel Ratliff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>Also note that if you have any deployments set to Ignore Maintenance Windows, >>adding Trevor’s suggestion below will not help. You will still need to stop >>CCMexec, etc. >>> >>>You could setup a client policy to disable what you need? But I know there >>>are some limitations there as well. >>> >>>Daniel Ratliff >>> >>>From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>>On Behalf Of Trevor Sullivan >>>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 9:13 AM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: RE: [mssms] Is it possible to have a Maitenance Window that >>>prevents any deployments? >>> >>>Sure, just create an All Deployments Maintenance Window that is 40 years in >>>the future, and apply it to those machines. If you’re especially worried >>>about these systems, then you could always consider disabling the ccmexec >>>service, or removing the ConfigMgr client altogether, but then you’d lose >>>other ConfigMgr features like Compliance Settings rules, Inventory reports, >>>and so on. It all depends on how critical these systems are during that >>>period. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Trevor Sullivan >>>Microsoft PowerShell MVP >>> >>>From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>>On Behalf Of [email protected] >>>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 8:02 AM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: [mssms] Is it possible to have a Maitenance Window that prevents >>>any deployments? >>> >>>Crazy question but I need to lock down a specific set of machines for a 30 >>>day window. Is it possible to prevent deployments entirely? Anyone have a >>>suggestion? >>> >>>Appreciate the help >>> >>>Thanks >>> >>> >>>The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >>>which it is addressed >>>and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this >>>material/information in error, >>>please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information. >>> >>> >> >> >
