I got approval. Set it up and schedule it. I have a few visio diagrams to explain it and I will make a ppt to also help explain it in addition to live demo.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Marcum, John <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to see this too. I'd setup a WebEx if you want to present this to a > couple of us. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell > Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:41 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question > > Kim, Jason, and anyone else that is interested I would be glad to explain > this in depth to you using visio diagrams and internal email threads, but > only offline. I seem to be incapable of explaining this succinctly. I would > be glad to explain to you so you guys could explain to others. > I even have SQL queries you can run to find these issues in your database. > > if interested email me at todd-DOT-hemsell-AT-exterran-DOT-com > > /Todd > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Todd Hemsell <[email protected]> wrote: >> So when a computer receives the policy for old app, and the the user >> receives it for the new app, you don't have supersedence >> >> sure you do provided the superseded app is deployed simulate and not >> mandatory OR if the detection rule on the older version says "this >> version or greater" >> In either case it will deploy the newer app, but if the older version >> is mandatory, it will then remove the newer version and install the >> older version (if the install supports it) It will go into a loop. >> Seen that a few times. >> >> We strictly deploy applications to EITHER users OR computers, but >> never the same app to both. >> >> If you deploy an app to a user and deploy the superseded version to >> the system as simulated then the app will upgrade. >> >> All of the scenarios I am listing out I have verified by forcing M$ to >> answer the question resulting in them going into the lab and >> reproducing the behavior. Only after they reproduce it do I add it to >> our polies and procedures. >> >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Kim Oppalfens <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'll try to explain what I know in the simplest way possible. >>> (although that is hard) >>> >>> Supersedence in itself only kicks in when a resource receives a policy for >>> both the old and the new app. >>> (There's some exceptions here, that I'll leave out because I am >>> trying the simple approach, but a user or computer needs to receive both.) >>> So when a computer receives the policy for old app, and the the user >>> receives it for the new app, you don't have supersedence. >>> >>> On the other hand, if you only receive the new app. Supersedence will >>> uninstall the old app when detected. Even when not installed by cm. >>> I think Todd is referring to the option of making a mandatory deployment to >>> users that have the available app installed, which is yet another special >>> case. >>> >>> Supersedence is actually a breeze, it gets complicated when you >>> involve uninstalls :-) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 5:51 PM >>> To: '[email protected]' >>> Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question >>> >>> That's just plain silly. Is this classified as a bug???? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:48 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question >>> >>> no. >>> >>> Bear in mind my deployments are to users optional as was intended. >>> None of this applies if it is to system. Or some of it might apply, but I >>> do not do deployments to systems except our 60 core apps. >>> The other 1,100 apps are user optional via the software center >>> >>> So for user deployments the policy comes down to the users. So for the case >>> of superseded apps SCCM only sends the policy down to a USER + COMPUTER >>> combination that it knows has the application. >>> >>> Interestingly enough it actually does send all supersedance rules to all >>> users, but those are discarded by the client and never processed. >>> There is a different flag on the ones where it knows the user + computer >>> has the app. >>> >>> Yes, incredibly complicated. This is the result of a 4 month case with MS. >>> It is difficult to even explain to people. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Marcum, John <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> This part makes no sense to me. I'm not saying you are wrong but is this >>>> "by design" because it sounds counter intuitive. " BUT only if CM12 >>>> deployed it and "knows" it is installed." Shouldn't that be evaluated at >>>> run time and not retrieved from some stored location? In other words if >>>> the product code is present on the machine at run time it would be removed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:31 AM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question >>>> >>>> The question does not make sense to me. >>>> >>>> Options: >>>> >>>> Supersede an application: >>>> This makes the older version no longer visible in the software center. >>>> UNLESS you click the check box to make both version visible This >>>> will make it to it removes the previous version before the new >>>> version >>>> >>>> When you do that without a deployment you have just removed the >>>> application from the software center, nothing else >>>> >>>> Then you do a deployment. You can either select to upgrade previous >>>> versions or not. If you select not to then when someone gets the app it >>>> will remove the previous version If you select to do it then you can set a >>>> deadline. >>>> With a deadline CM12 will actively upgrade previous versions, BUT only if >>>> CM12 deployed it and "knows" it is installed. >>>> >>>> If you want to make sure it "knows about" all installed previous >>>> version regardless of who or what installed it you need to do a >>>> simulated deployment if the SUPERCEDED application to all SYSTEMS >>>> (not >>>> users) >>>> >>>> If you do that make sure of the following: >>>> The superseded version cannot have any dependencies The deployed version >>>> cannot have and CHAINED dependencies. >>>> >>>> If either of the above 2 are true, it will force install on all systems >>>> regardless of whether the previous version is installed or not. >>>> >>>> A bit complicated, read it a few times before asking questions :-) >>>> >>>> The bugs are filed or being reproduced and filed today. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Matt Wilkinson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I’m curious about this too. Do you delete the existing deployment >>>>> for the old application or just leave it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: Gerlak, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Sent: 29 April 2014 21:47 >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SO if I add a supersedence to my Office 2013 package to remove >>>>> Office >>>>> 2010 package and click the uninstall check box. I just want to make >>>>> sure I still need a deployment for the upgraded to happen. I want >>>>> to make sure I don’t upgrade everyone’s office overnight >>>>> >>>>> Like SMS or SCCM would do that. J >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ___________________________________________________________________ >>>>> __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security >>>>> System on behalf of Leeds College of Building. >>>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >>>>> ___________________________________________________________________ >>>>> __ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ___________________________________________________________________ >>>>> __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security >>>>> System on behalf of Leeds College of Building. >>>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >>>>> ___________________________________________________________________ >>>>> __ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be >>>> protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have >>>> received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to >>>> this e-mail and then delete it from your computer. >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be >>>> protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have >>>> received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to >>>> this e-mail and then delete it from your computer. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected >>> by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received >>> this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail >>> and then delete it from your computer. >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected >>> by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received >>> this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail >>> and then delete it from your computer. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected > by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this > message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and > then delete it from your computer. > > ________________________________ > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected > by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this > message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and > then delete it from your computer. >
