Who said you could talk? :) Honestly, my position on all this is very simple. I was a tech and have been hacking solutions a long time before I became an MVP. I will always be a techie first. It is MS' responsibility to enforce its EULA, and they have enough resources to do just that. IF I make a categorical statement to a client that something could NOT be done, and the client finds out that it can (but should not) be done, I lose credibility. Whatever I tell them from then on will be taken with reservations. I am a tech first, then an MVP. I respect EULA, but the techie in me is more interested in toying with things. There have been many, many instances when MS has told us that things couldn't be done, where we techies have gone out to do it, and where MS has ended up backtracking and incorporating the product of our curiosity into the mainstream. We chalked it all down to product feedback and improvement. "F6" to load in unsupported drivers was considered an unsupported hack back in 96 or so. HAL switching in system image was (is?) considered a hack and unsupported. I can't tell you how many ways we had to hack SBS 4.0 back in 97 just so things can work on, say, a system that had no modem. Many of the things we did went into SBS4.5, although many of them were previously "unsupported". Things can be done - it all depends on your patience, persistence and resourcefulness. Kids have been putting fingers in the fire for a long time - and kids will continue to do so till eternity - regardless of how often people warn them about the danger. The information is publicly out there (with sufficient caveats about EULA violations, supportability issues, and burning toasters) and, in my very humble opinion, if MS really doesn't want to see this done, they have access to the source code and have had plenty of time to kill the hack (QFEs, SPs, killbits, whatever) such that the process can not even be attempted. Or better still, maybe they can put a fix in so that the hack does not cause havocs. I'm done as far as this topic is concerned now. 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Roger Seielstad Sent: Wed 9/14/2005 5:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] SBS Server Question Yeah, but his MVP is in MSDS (as in Dining Services). We've got pictures to prove it -------- Roger Seielstad E-mail Geek -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] SBS Server Question EULA dear. There's Can and there is legal. No you can't and be legal... and for a MVP shame on you ;-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Actually, depending on your level of tolerance for pains, I know that >you can. > >http://www.akomolafe.com/Portals/1/Creating%20a%20trust%20relationship% >20betw een%20two%20Small%20Business%20Server%202000%20domains.htm > > >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sakari Kouti >Sent: Wed 9/14/2005 11:46 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] SBS Server Question > > > >Hi Jose, > >No, an SBS domain cannot have trusts, so it cannot be a child domain. > >And yes, after you have installed an SBS box, you can install >additional DCs, if they are normal Windows Server 2003 boxes. > >Yours, Sakari > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Medeiros, >>Jose >>Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:47 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: [ActiveDir] SBS Server Question >> >>Hi Susan, >> >>Since we have an SBS MVP on the Active Dir list, let me ask a >>question. >> >>Can I now make an SBS 2003 server a child domain in an AD >>2003 forest? >> >>Before you ask why, some one asked me this recently at a Linux users >>group meeting, as his company has several remote offices using SBS >>2003. >> >>Also on SBS 4.5, one could have a BDC as a backup, can this also be >>done with a DC or are you " Sh.T out of luck " when a box fails? >> >>Jose >> >> >>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/ > > >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/ > > > -- Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? http://www.threatcode.com 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/ 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/
