Or I guess that people could use the features which exist in the product such as security scopes and security roles.
They could also do things like run a check via WMI or TSVs that a system is valid to have the TS run on it. > On 17 May 2014, at 15:35, "Miller, Todd" <[email protected]> wrote: > > This happens enough that you have to start wondering if the software could be > improved in some way to help prevent it. > > Maybe there should be alerts or limits or a wizard that summarizes any change > that affects a deployment or target collection. > > Like when you click OK, maybe there would be a "This change will result in > NNNN systems receiving Package/Application "YYYYYYYY" with a mandatory time > of 12:20AM" or something like that. > > The trouble is, you would need to do that every time you modify a collection > too and that takes some computational time. - maybe that is computer in the > background and you get this warning when you enable the deployment? Wouldn't > it be nice if there was an option to create all deployments as disabled and > then you had to enable them, and when enabling them you could see or were > told how many systems are affected. > > You could also automatically disable advertisements when the underlying > collection query was modified. So the advertisement would need to be > reenabled after reviewing how that change affected the deployment. > > You know how your DVR shows what programs are going to be recorded over the > next couple of days/weeks? Wouldn't it be great if SCCM showed a list like > that of pending packages, deadlines, the target collection, the number of > affected machines, and the time? > > With these kinds of events, there definitely is an established need to make > the SCCM product harder to make unintentional blunders and easier to see what > it is doing/going to do and when. > > Often with these kinds of things there is a long chain of events that lead to > an unanticipated result. The worst part is that those machines that were > ruined over night, SCCM probably "knew" it was going to happen all day long > and could have warned the Admin if there was just a interface that computed > what advertisements were pending, how many machines are affected etc.... I > certainly would get more use from something like that than being able to > manage iOS/MacOS/Linux/AntiVirus definitions/Android Apps/etc. Maybe SCCM > v.Next can focus on doing core competencies better rather than extending the > product into areas few care about. > > I dunno, I just don't think all or even half the blame falls on the guy that > clicked "OK." I certainly feel a great deal of empathy for him. While this > has never happened to me, it has sometimes been a recurring theme in bad > dreams/nightmares. > > > > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on > behalf of JONES, RICK J [[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 5:33 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: Emory IT accidentally deploys Windows 7 to everything > > EVERY person in IT has an OCM (Oh Crap Moment) that they remember or changed > them. If a new tech haven't had their OCM yet, I tend to lock down access > and not trust because the OCM has a higher chance of happen in my environment. > > And yes, I had my OCM, it changed how I add logging and build a back out to > my scripts. > > Rick J. Jones > Wireless from AT&T > Domestic Desktop Application Management > D: (425) 288-6240 > C: (206) 419-1104 > From: Murray, Mike > Sent: 5/16/2014 4:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [mssms] RE: Emory IT accidentally deploys Windows 7 to everything > > Wow.... ouch. So there's an opening at Emory? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of William Jackson > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [mssms] Emory IT accidentally deploys Windows 7 to everything > > I'm thankful that I do not work over there. > > "A Windows 7 deployment image was accidentally sent to all Windows machines, > including laptops, desktops, and even servers. This image started with a > repartition / reformat set of tasks. As soon as the accident was discovered, > the SCCM server was powered off – however, by that time, the SCCM server > itself had been repartitioned and reformatted." > > http://it.emory.edu/windows7-incident/ > > William > > > > > > > Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the > Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential > and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you > are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the > sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank > you. >
