| Author | Messages | |
MarcusOh
Posts:14
 | | 10/11/2005 3:04 AM |
| Exactly. My beef too. Let me tell you¦
there support is less than stellar. I think I™d rather talk miis to some
dude in India
before engaging a Cisco support rep again.
:m:dsm:cci:mvp marcusoh.blogspot.com
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ayers, Diane
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005
10:21 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
>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@xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005
6:52 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 Kooi
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005
7:57 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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. Smith
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005
6:14 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!„¢
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005
1:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 Kooi
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005
12:37 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 joe
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005
9:42 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 Kooi
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:04
AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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@xxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005
7:27 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 joe
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005
9:03 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005
5:17 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 Kooi
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005
10:57 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema
Updates
Upgraded.
From:
ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marcus.Oh@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005
9:38 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 Kooi
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005
10:12 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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 joe
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005
10:03 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005
2:59 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [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 | | | |
|
|