Hi folks
Craig an interesting discussion below.
I am particularly interested in IM and data models which you touch on -
if you have any good references on WWW material which expands on these
concepts I would appreciate (directly to me or the list).
One observation I would make is that the discussion assumes that the
MSCE community has skills in the IM/IS/IT planning arena and/or data
modelling - I not sure one can assume this.
Cheers
Shaun
-----Original Message-----
From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2001 6:49 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [ActiveDir] Reaction to the "Visions from the field" thread
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
da!
ta!
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/
smime.p7s
