I mostly just listen to this list. It's one of the better learning sites that I know.
The discussions are pretty much noise free.
This thread that ended in CJ's "Sammy Setup" comment was cause for a great deal of
thought. I have a long standing gripe with the whole MCSE community over the topic of
information management, and how we don't do it - even poorly. So here is a thread in
which some of the best are agreeing that things like OU planning are going to prevent
the casual folks from doing anything useful. It seems like an appropriate place to
challenge some established thinking.
The general belief among MCSE's is that information management is NOT the
responsibility of the MCSE community. Rather, tools like search engines, index
servers, and repositories are where that stuff is done, all the while OU plans that
define basic storage structures are things that MCSE's should define. This belief is
extended to a notion that there should be a layer of independence between systems
planning, implementation, and operations, while the data folks to their thing on top
of what we provide. But isn't that rather like building libraries complete with
stacks, facilities for cataloging, and a location and specification for the front
desk, without knowing anything about the service goals of the librarians?
It isn't working.
About the kindest thing that one can say is that data mismanagement and chaos is just
as bad in an NT world as it was in the NetWare and host based worlds that came before.
However, given the power of the tools that are now available, that is probably too
generous of a synopsis. We need a better plan.
Up in the chaos level where the data managers live, things are not much better. They
tend to know little about the underlying systems, and they tend to live in a fiction
that the basic approach that they have been using is valid. But that is bad science.
Generally, if you try something repeatedly (maybe hundreds or even thousands of times)
over a 20 year period and you keep getting the same negative results, in most fields
the theory gets discarded. The data guys have not done this. They still believe that
the problem revolves around meta data, and getting management to get tough with data
owners to properly record their meta data and maintain the source data. What a bunch
of tripe!
I've been studying this problem since sometime around 1987, and have come to some
conclusions. One is that the LAN systems engineers need to step up to the plate and
do the job. The data guys just don't have the systems expertise that is required.
There is a down side to this of course, it means having the systems community get it
hands dirty with things that get tainted with stupid politics. But, if the MCSE
community does not do this, well then how can we claim not to be "Sammy Setups"
ourselves? Hey, it's not my problem . . .
Here is the answer. Contrary to what most people believe, libraries do not directly
index and store meta-data about information. They use an indirect process. They
index and manage the storage space where the data resides, and it is the addressing of
the storage space that provides the meta-data, which it then applied to the elements
of the collection. A book or a map receives meta data from the storage model, not the
other way around. To make this all work in a meaningful way, librarians impose two
simple but unwavering rules. First, there are no miscellaneous storage containers.
None. Second, the addressing schema is in and of itself a master information schema.
They do not use the chaos of ISBN's for example, and assume that people will do
massive searches of meta-data indices, which in turn will lead them to materials that
are stored at random and labeled with something meaningless like an ISBN. Whether
they use Dewey, LC, modified LC, or something else, the data!
model and the storage addressing system are one and the same thing.
This is where the MCSE community is flat out wrong, and needs to start over. We set
up systems using arbitrary naming schemas that are create solely for the purpose of
sys admin convenience, the we expect people to use search engines to overcome its
inherent chaotic nature. Of course it doesn't work. By definition, it can't.
So I find these discussions about OU structures in the AD to be somewhat amusing.
They are serving the wrong master.
-----Original Message-----
From: Great Cthulhu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 12:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Active Directory - Visions from the field
You are correct. "Sammy Setup" is not going to be a CD-slinger in the AD
world.
(:=
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter A. Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory - Visions from the field
> I can understand that many are converting to 2000 for the stability of the
> platform and many are not rushing to embrace AD, but I don't think
Microsoft
> is giving any choice. Many products like, ISA and Exchange are required to
> use AD now. The ones who are not embracing, still don't have a plan.
Having
> a plan in place today is paramount to converting at a later time. Its the
> decisions being made now that will make or break the conversion at a later
> date. The intent of this reply in no way is trying to contradict what your
> saying, I agree for the most part. I'm just wondering if we have to many
> "Technical Experts" around who are missing a very key fundamental
> requirement of success, plan, pilot implement. I think 4.0 allowed anyone
> to, Insert CD, Pick Defaults and run. I'm also thinking this is what many
> executives and mangers think is what's going to happen when the time comes
> to convert. Hey, I like the business but I guess what I'm wondering, is
this
> going to shake out a lot of the "Technical Experts" and people who became
> the "Lan Administrator", because they could insert the cd and follow the
> wizard. Perhaps the answer is, remove the wizards and make the
installations
> require some thought? Just posing more on the subject.
>
> Pete
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Great Cthulhu
> Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Active Directory - Visions from the field
>
>
> Many are converting to Windows 2000 for the stability of the platform. Few
> are rushing to embrace Active Directory. Some of the best successes are
> single-server shops where it's hard to mess things up as deeply and
> profoundly as you could with two or more servers in the mix.
>
> (:=
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter A. Solomon
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 7:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [ActiveDir] Active Directory - Visions from the field
>
>
> Hello,
> I just joined the list, so I will start with saying hello. The reason for
> the post is I am curious what others are seeing in the field as far as
> planning, and design. I'm getting the overall feeling for small to
mid-size
> companies that they are avoiding the AD concept as long as they can. The
> majority of clients I have been seen are all talking about active
directory
> but when the topic of really converting to it comes up, they run for the
> hills. I've also seen a number of sloppy attempts at planning for AD. I
> think one of the bigger misconceptions in the field is that AD planning
> doesn't have to be taken as seriously as touted.
> With NT 4.0, it was told that you must plan your domain's. The single,
> master, muli-master and complete trust was always a favorite interview
> question, right up there with what are the seven layers of the ISO model.
> With Windows NT 4.0 you could do a poor job of planning a domain, and many
> people got by with their mess. Many of these same companies are still in
> that mess and if they were to start migrating today, it would be a
disaster.
> I also see the "Yes Active Directory, Its Great!, Blah Blah Blah". When
the
> topic of planning and steps taken comes up, I get a half baked answer and
> they change the subject, "Look A Moose!" Then in the next couple of
breaths,
> "Were going to Exchange 2000, were planning it now, its going to be great.
> >From my experience of seeing half a** attempts at 4.0 domains, I can just
> imagine what its going to look like with Active directory.
> Perhaps this is just what I'm seeing, I would like to see what others see.
> With all the hype removed, what are others honest opinion on where the AD
> conversions are going and what the average domain looks like.
>
> Pete Solomon
>
> List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info: http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
