|
*ding!* *ding!* *ding!*...
my 'joeware' filter alarm just went off (it's set
to alert me when it detects +1.0 blood/alcohol level on a
thread). :-)
Sorry folks, I've been super busy answering to "the
master... yes precioussss..." and haven't had lots of time to participate
(though I've been enjoying some the threads). I'll try to be a more
responsible netizen and chime in when and where I can with code and what
not. As for Robbie - well *hmpfh* - he's
moved into a cushy architecture job where he gets caviar and champagne all the
time (or so I hear). :-p
Well that sucks about Gil, I'll have to see if I can
start some down and dirty threads to pull him out of the
corner.
I
owe Richard a note, don't let him know I am here... shhhh... <peers
about>
I
read like 6 last night, 2 more tonight and my part will be done and Robbie
should be cool. Now I get to focus full time on trying to dress
that E2K pig up and making it dance and pretend to be a scaleable
properly manageable mail system. I just learned the dirty secret about
msExchSecurityDescriptor this afternoon and stomped out of the lab in disgust,
not even sure why they used the attribute at all. Either do it in the store or
do it in the directory, one or the other, JUMP! Reminds me of the parable of
the grape who couldn't figure out which side of the road was better and
squish. Because of that and I think for fun and to egg on the Premier guys
this week I am going to turn on inefficient query logging on the Exchange lab
DC's to see how funny it is. ;oP
We
have indexed objectclass now so that should help it out quite a bit.
Definitely helped out with some of the other poorly written apps running
around that were experiencing time outs. We were told we could probably
expect a 25-30%+ DIT size growth doing that, it was a tiny growth, indexed a
whole bunch of other attributes as well and our GC DIT only grew by like
100-150MB which is a drop in the bucket to the 6GB GC DIT.
Ah,
I need to get back into Word. Though before I go does Laura hang out here as
well? How about Dean/Roger/Ace/Jimmy/Thomas and the rest of the
troublemakers?
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]
|
