Title: Message
|
Been
here. Busy. Vacation. Back soon.
-gil
Sadly, Gil has not been spending as much time here as he has in the
past. Not sure why. He does post now and then - especially when
the replication or lower level programming talk gets deep.
Robbie Allen and Richard Puckett have been fairly visible - Richard, I
can't say why he hasn't been here. Robbie, though - I can speak
for. I KNOW what he's doing.... :-) He'll be free(er)
shortly......
-rtk
It will definitely be fun. I personally am waiting for a
Gil Kirkpatrick siting, I hear he wanders these halls.... ADFIND (and
every other LDAP joeware tool) wouldn't exist except for Gil and his
book and that would be a sad thing for me because I love those
tools.
joe
Yeah! LOL! That's waaaaaay too good.
Glad you could make it. You will certainly be a worthy addition
to the characters that wander in here.....
-rtk
Everyone kept saying, join activedir join activedir, so
I stumbled in fashionably late and three sheets to the wind... The only way
to make an entrance. ;o)
So
where were we, I believe we were discussing slapping MIT Kerberos and
OpenLDAP on a Linux box and calling it OverActive Directory?
Mr. Richards..... welcome to the party.
;-)
Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT
Microsoft MVP -
Active Directory
Associate Expert
Expert Zone -
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
I agree with Rick completely. I work for a very large
organization and policy is policy. Not only will we not let you put them
into our Active Directory, I have a script that will find them and throw
the machine objects into an Enterprise Admin Access only OU and disable
and smack the ACL of the offending object if you someone sneak one in. So
not only do they not get to use the server anymore, they can't even use
that server name again. We catch more than a couple of occurrances of this
and we take away their ability to add anything and let their managers know
that we did it and why.
While I understand why people want to put them in (I in fact want
to as well), we want a centralized controlled IT structure and the best
way to maintain or reduce costs is to have a handle on what is in
production. We do not have an official company load for W2K3 yet with all
of the certified drivers and antivirus software so we don't want anyone
deploying anything on it because anything they deploy we know will have to
be revisited and is a possible breeding ground of viri, worm's, and
support issues with no escalation paths.
Tough love I guess.
joe
Justifying it technically is going to be a problem, as there are
no real 'downfalls'.
However - if they don't want them - stick to your guns.
Policy says NO. If there are any questions, refer to latter
statement.
Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT
Microsoft MVP -
Active Directory
Associate Expert
Expert Zone -
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Has
anyone come across any problems with installing the new windows 2003
servers to the Windows 2000 site.
Running
W2K with SP3 and Exchange 2000 all in native modes. Our company is having a storm of
interns coming in and wanting to run projects on a W2k3 server. Other than it is against
company policy not to allow users to install servers, or even there own
systems. Management is trying to come up
with some negatives to this, other than just saying it is against
company policy.
Ron
Pennell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
