| Author | Messages | |
DAyers
Posts:2
 | | 10/11/2005 2:30 AM |
| >You
ever find that often times the products are already bought before your input is
requested?
The better question is when do they
ever check with you before they buy a product? Nope... They usually
ask someone that has no clue of the impact to the production systems then they
bring it to us to "implement"
We have Unity and it has had a
major impact to our AD environment although I can say that the users
(including me) love it's functionality. What irks me more though is
the version that we implemented initially had major schema changes and then the
subsequent version decide to move a lot of the data from AD to a separate SQL
DB. Why didn't they tell me that BEFORE we irrevocably altered the
schema.
Another good example is Cisco
ICM. The version prior to the new 7.x version required a separate
domain, required domain admin level privileges to operate and schema changes to
forest as well as a litany of other "issues". At least version 7.x will
integrate into an existing corporate domain although requires a dedicated
OU. I really get nervous with applications that want to create user
objects wily-nily in order to operate.
Diane
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Marcus.Oh@xxxxxxxSent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:52
PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir]
Schema Updates
Our movement for Cisco
Unity was based strictly on a wholesale move to Cisco VoIP solutions all the way
around. Apparently there™s some cost savings there somewhere. I
dunno¦ regarding the comment joe made about not ever being in your ad
environment. Concur 100%. You ever find that often times the
products are already bought before your input is
requested?
I dunno if I have
bigger problems with cisco being in the software space or their horrible turnout
of applications after they™ve acquired them. Unity, call manager, etc¦ one
uses ad¦ one uses dirsync in a proprietary ldap server¦ odd stuff like
that. Not to mention, it took a nda and massive levels of coercion to get
cisco to fess up to what the exact permissions were that are required in order
for unity to work successfully. That was a good month long ordeal.
Unfortunately nda - so I can™t really speak or blog on the exact stuff to
correct it. Their reasoning? Most admins have no idea how to
configure the ACLs properly to support their application. I
digress.
:m:dsm:cci:mvp
marcusoh.blogspot.com
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Vander
KooiSent: Monday, October 10,
2005 7:57 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
The price tag will
definitely drop as soon as Microsoft releases Exchange 12 with UM built in. But,
it's not THAT expensive today, and there are some great business pluses to it.
We had no problems showing ROI on VOIP or UM.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Michael B.
SmithSent: Monday, October 10,
2005 6:14 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
It's a feature with
lots of "gee whiz!" appeal, but once people see the price tag, the response is
usually "ouch!"
We are still waiting
for the "year of UM". I'm betting on 2007. :-)
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
[MVP]Sent: Monday, October 10,
2005 6:49 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
I think this is
definitely a case where Moore's Law hasn't been applicable. It's
funny how little this story has changed since I saw the first unified messaging
demos (then by Octel) about ten years ago.
Ed Crowley
MCSE+Internet MVPFreelance E-Mail PhilosopherProtecting the world from
PSTs and Bricked Backups!„¢
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Monday, October 10, 2005 1:49
PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Entirely your option.
:) Windows 3.11 and Windows NT are really not the same product.
Note I am not saying I
won't use cisco routers because they sucked 12 years ago. As someone else
pointed out, software isn't cisco's ball of wax. There is obviously a little bit
of a scary point there when you consider though that the IOS is software...
Also as you mentioned,
it wasn't created or even modified much by cisco. So I don't expect it
is much different now than what I saw.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Vander
KooiSent: Monday, October 10,
2005 12:37 PMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
And I will never run
Windows because 3.11 just wasn't that great at networking.
;-)
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:42
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Being the best
available doesn't make something good and doesn't need a lot of work.
:o)
It just means it is
better than the other sucky alternatives.
I haven't seen unity in
years but when I last saw it, it had me swearing about how bad it was. I seem to
recall saying something along the lines of that will never be in any AD I ever
manage.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Vander
KooiSent: Monday, October 10,
2005 10:04 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Not sure why you don't
like Unity, it's the best unified messaging app there is right now. Actually has
been for over 5 years. I believe that the reason it;s as good as it is, is that
it was not created or even modified much by Cisco, they simply bought a really
good product and left it be for the most part.
As for the schema
updates, it didn't work. We made the registry change and it did work. I don't
see how that would be tied to the app as no changes were made there. But who
knows.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of
Marcus.Oh@xxxxxxxSent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 7:27
PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Hmmm. I need to
think about that again. I think I only saw this behavior in the lab where
all the servers were upgraded instead of wipe and replace. In production,
we upgraded initially then did a replacement effort
later.
More to the point, UGH
Cisco Unity¦ I wish to Christ they™d stick to hardware and stop venturing into
software¦
:m:dsm:cci:mvp
marcusoh.blogspot.com
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:03
PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Was it maybe the app
itself disallowing the update? Did you try to just modify the schema to see if
it would work? Say change the rangeupper of cn or something like that and then
change it back. Something innocuous.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of
Marcus.Oh@xxxxxxxSent: Friday, October 07, 2005 5:17
PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Yep, same here. I
think upgraded scenarios have this.
:m:dsm:cci:mvp
marcusoh.blogspot.com
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Vander
KooiSent: Friday, October 07,
2005 10:57 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Upgraded.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of
Marcus.Oh@xxxxxxxSent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:38
AMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Upgraded to 2003 or
fresh install?
:m:dsm:cci:mvp
marcusoh.blogspot.com
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Vander
KooiSent: Friday, October 07,
2005 10:12 AMTo:
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
I just did this last
week to install Cisco Unity and I still had to enable schema updates in Windows
2003 even though the user was in Schema Admins. I was under the same impression
as Travis, but after enabling updating in the registry it worked
fine.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of joeSent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 10:03
PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Did you work this out
Travis?
If not, I would
recommend pulling up the sysinternal registry and file monitors as well as
tracing the AD calls.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of
travis.abrams@xxxxxxxxxSent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 2:59
PMTo: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Hi,
I
am having some problems updating the schema for Avaya Unified Messaging. It is
my thinking that in Windows 2003 the schema is already enabled for updates as
long as you are in the Schema Admins group. In Windows 2000 you had to enable
the Schema to be updated. Am I correct or
misguided?
Thanks!
Travis
Abrams | | | |
|
|