| Author | Messages | |
MarcusOh
Posts:14
 | | 10/11/2005 6:44 AM |
| No slight on intelligence, technical prowess, or anything of that like, Deji.
I only meant that I'd rather work through a language barrier discussing technology with people in India or China than to discuss Cisco software products w/ Cisco support reps. It'd be a far more positive experience... :)
:m:dsm:cci:mvp marcusoh.blogspot.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:23 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates
>>>I think I'd rather talk miis to some dude in India before engaging a Cisco
support rep again
Marcus,
I can't resist the urge to turn off my lurking mode and ask you to please
explain the relevance of the statement above to the scope of this
conversation, especially in this public forum. I am holding back the
irresistible urge to jump to conclusions, considering the fact that a
significant portion of the SMS (where you got your MVP) knowledge out there
are contributed by people from that part of the world.
Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCP+I
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Marcus.Oh@xxxxxxx
Sent: Tue 10/11/2005 7:45 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates
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!(tm)
________________________________
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
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
|
|