that is my catch 22.... MS says "Well nobody else has the problem"
Community says "Are there any problems doing this?" Either I screw you and help myself by recommending it, or I screw myself by being the only one doing it. I sure wish MS would fix serious issues like this before it impacts everyone. Like they never consider maybe the reason nobody uses it is because it is a turd, and if they fix it then people would use it. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Lindenfeld, Ivan <[email protected]> wrote: > We don't use app model deployments a lot at the moment, maybe we should not. > This is scary. I realize you are presenting facts and not trying to scare > the folks. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) > > Software will randomly install on computers all over the environment. > Desktops, Servers.. everything. It is nearly impossible to predict when and > where apps will install. > > Bug was filed by another company here in Houston in January based on > deployments to computers. > > We filed it based on deployments to users. It is the same section of code > causing both issues. > > If this query returns any results then you would be affected if you deployed > the application in the third column to your users as available and selected > to upgrade previous versions of the application and the app in the 4th column > was installed on any machine in your environment, including servers. > > > DECLARE @AppIDs TABLE(AppID NVARCHAR(200), ReqAppID NVARCHAR(200), AppCIID > INT, DisplayName NVARCHAR(200)) > > DECLARE @ReqAppIDs TABLE(AppID NVARCHAR(200), ReqAppID NVARCHAR(200), AppCIID > INT, DisplayName NVARCHAR(200), ReqAppCIID INT) > > INSERT INTO @AppIDs > > SELECT App.CI_UniqueID, REPLACE (App.CI_UniqueID, '/Application_', > '/RequiredApplication_'), App.CI_ID, A.DisplayName > > FROM CI_ConfigurationItems App > > JOIN fn_ListApplicationCIs(1033) A on A.CI_ID = App.CI_ID > > WHERE App.IsLatest =1 AND App.CI_UniqueID like '%/Application_%' > > INSERT INTO @ReqAppIDs > > SELECT A.AppID, A.ReqAppID, A.AppCIID, A.DisplayName, C.CI_ID FROM @AppIDs A > > JOIN CI_ConfigurationItems C ON C.CI_UniqueID = A.ReqAppID > > select distinct > > AA.AssignmentName, AA.RequireApproval, > > RA.DisplayName AS [ThisAppBecomesAvailable] > > ,dt.DisplayName AS [IfThisAppIsInstalled] > > --,RA.AppCIID, RA.ReqAppCIID > > from CI_ConfigurationItemRelations_Flat cirf > > join v_ConfigurationItems ci on cirf.ToCI_ID = ci.CI_ID and ci.CIType_ID = 21 > > join CI_ConfigurationItemRelations cir on cir.FromCI_ID = cirf.FromCI_ID and > cir.RelationType = 11 > > join CI_ConfigurationItemRelations cir2 on > > cir2.FromCI_ID = cir.ToCI_ID and > > cir2.RelationType = 9 and > > cir2.ToCI_ID != cirf.ToCI_ID > > join CI_ConfigurationItemRelations_flat cir3 on cir3.FromCI_ID = cir2.ToCI_ID > and cir3.ToCI_ID = ci.CI_ID and cir3.RelationType = 15 > > join fn_ListDeploymentTypeCIs(1033) DT on DT.CI_ID = ci.CI_ID > > join @ReqAppIDs RA on RA.ReqAppCIID = cirf.FromCI_ID > > left join v_ApplicationAssignment AA on AA.AssignedCI_UniqueID = RA.AppID > > where cirf.FromCI_ID IN ( > > SELECT ReqAppCIID FROM @ReqAppIDs > > ) > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Spinelli, Robert J > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Todd can you expand on this? >> >> What are the 2 bugs you're referring to? >> >> Thank you. >> >> Robert Spinelli | CTS | GTI | 575 Washington Boulevard, Jersey City, >> NJ, 07310, United States| T: +1.201.595.6820 | C: +1.917.538.6192 | >> [email protected] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell >> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 11:50 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) >> >> How about fixing the 2 confirmed bugs that make software randomly deploy all >> over the enterprise? This is costing us hundreds of thousands in license >> costs unless we spend a ton of money going and cleaning it up. >> >> Bug # 409863 >> Premier Case # 113042910402566 >> >> Second one is case #114020411157225 - not sure what bug # got assigned to it >> yet. They are from the same code section. >> >> >> Vinay found the root cause for both. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Brian Huneycutt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Thanks all for the feedback and certainly the kind words. Yes, we do >>> like to fix things in Sustained Engineering :) Definitely submit ideas via >>> our Connect site. >>> We are working toward making the update process a little clearer and will >>> have more to share soon. I too like the idea of keeping the version >>> information in one place for ease of use/discoverability (similar in >>> function to the SQL version KB). >>> >>> In the meantime a bit more on the Automatic Client Upgrade feature (as it >>> stands today - not to say that it can't or won't change in a future >>> version). >>> This feature currently only works with full clients -client.msi- that are >>> shipped with a major release (SP1/R2). It's an all-or-nothing scenario with >>> no specific targeting, reporting, etc. But as mentioned it can be turned >>> off, and is off by default. >>> We ship client updates / patches as .MSP files in hotfixes and cumulative >>> updates instead of the full client.msi, and the plumbing simply isn't there >>> today in Auto Client Upgrade to handle those. >>> With all of that said, do keep the feedback coming to Connect on this >>> feature, or on any specific problems/ goals as they relate to servicing. >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> Brian Huneycutt >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:00 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) >>> >>> Another great feature would be an in-console "check for updates" That would >>> verify if the environemnt and clients are on the latest versions. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 3:56 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) >>> >>> Yes, that's what sustained engineering does. :-) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kent, Mark >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 3:46 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) >>> >>> But maybe he can fix the glitch :-) >>> >>> Mark Kent (MCP) >>> Sr. Desktop Systems Engineer >>> Computing & Technology Services - SUNY Buffalo State >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4:44 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) >>> >>> He's not a PM... Sustained Engineering >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 3:43 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) >>> >>> Are you the only PM interested in improving things? >>> >>> would you please take over applications and content distribution? >>> >>> You are taking me back to 2005'ish when the community and MS worked >>> together to improve things. Getting me all nostalgic and stuff... >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Brian Huneycutt <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Having multiple product versions in market at once can definitely >>>> make things confusing :) >>>> 5.00.7958.1104 is an R2 hotfix (pre-CU1) >>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2910552 >>>> >>>> John in your list below you have these (I've sorted earliest to >>>> latest) >>>> 5.00.7711.0000 - 2012 RTM >>>> 5.00.7804.1000 - 2012 SP1 >>>> 5.00.7958.1000 - 2012 R2 >>>> 5.00.7958.1101 - R2 hotfix 2905002 (superseded by 2910552. Both >>>> articles are cross-referenced, and both in R2 CU1) >>>> 5.00.7958.1203 - R2 CU1 >>>> >>>> Our KB articles for Cumulative Updates now contain all the version >>>> specific details you should need to make identification easier, though we >>>> have not retroactively added that info to older articles. >>>> It looks like some of our individual hotfix KB articles don't explicitly >>>> call out the client version when it changes; we can work on correcting >>>> those. >>>> What else should we consider to ease the confusion? >>>> Thanks, >>>> Brian Huneycutt >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:30 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: RE: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) >>>> >>>> Here's what I have. I think the way they are doing updates is a confusing >>>> mess. >>>> >>>> 5.00.7958.1000 >>>> 5.00.7958.1203 >>>> 5.00.7711.0000 >>>> 5.00.7804.1000 >>>> 5.00.7958.1101 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell >>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:22 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) >>>> >>>> yes, and somehow I am at an impossible version number. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> http://blogs.technet.com/b/configmgrdogs/archive/2014/04/11/configm >>>>> g >>>>> r >>>>> - >>>>> 2012-version-numbers.aspx >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Center_Configuration_Manager >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not from Microsoft direct, but these show the version numbers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:12 AM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) >>>>>> >>>>>> you happen to have a link to the update you installed? I am doing >>>>>> something wrong over here. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kent, Mark >>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > I have 5.00.7958.1203, from one post R2 CU1 update. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Mark Kent (MCP) >>>>>> > Sr. Desktop Systems Engineer >>>>>> > Computing & Technology Services - SUNY Buffalo State >>>>>> > >>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>> > From: [email protected] >>>>>> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd >>>>>> > Hemsell >>>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 1:03 PM >>>>>> > To: [email protected] >>>>>> > Subject: [mssms] Client Version 5.00.7958.1104 (R2 CU1) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > What is the most recent client version? I have 5.00.7958.1104 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I get ZERO hits when googling that version. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > /Todd >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as >> an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial >> instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market >> prices, data and other information are not warranted as to completeness or >> accuracy and are subject to change without notice. Any comments or >> statements made herein do not necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase & >> Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates. >> >> This transmission may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, >> confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are >> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, >> copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including >> any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and >> any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that >> might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is >> the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no >> responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and >> affiliates, as applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from >> its use. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately >> contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in >> electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. >> >> Please refer to http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures for disclosures >> relating to European legal entities. >> > > > > > ________________________________ > NOTICE: The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or > confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of > this communication, you are hereby notified to: (i) delete the message and > all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any > manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. >
