(IAA) systems fit into that?
-ajm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:11 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
> It's not MS softw
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:29 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Each VM has it's own support and patching probl
ow forever?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:48 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
re: "some virtualization and
ybe. What about blurring lines between my
> network and your network? Better do that else risk being left in the closet.
>
>
> What about the desktops? Anything radical? Depends on above I think, as
> long as the NOS concept stays intact. Should it?
>
>
>
>
&g
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: 10 October 2005 15:32
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
To move this in a slightly different direction. How would people feel
about a BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode where not only are DCs
impact
ward and
not be stuck with the idea that a DC is x and can't be anything but x.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:17 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackCo
I think the supporting tools and the strategy for what
will be included and what will be left to third-party companies needs to be
tuned on an ongoing basis.
-ajm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, October 10,
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
>Sent: 10 October 2005 15:32
>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
>
>To move this in a slightly different direction. How would people feel
>about a BlackComb Super Forest Functio
but x.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:17 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Hmm... No, I disagree joe. Microsoft does need to
dea even if they are virtualized. Each one is its own support and
patching problem.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:03 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Supe
ir apps adopted.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:37 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
> - Blackcomb clients would need to be available
M
[3]
[3] It's almost circular logic at some point
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:45 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Don
11:45 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
2 immediate comments:
- Blackcomb clients would need to be available several years before the
blackcomb server.
- Impact on non-Windows clients would need to be assessed. [SAMBA, nix, Mac
e
ther supporting
pieces.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:30 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Depends on how it's im
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:59 AM
To: Send - AD mailing list
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Good suggestion Joe and, in principal, I agree ... but were that to make it
to reality, I'd question why the legacy domain model persists. Domains are,
IMO, an ou
hnology.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 7:32 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
To move this in a slightly different direction. How would peopl
joe
>Sent: 10 October 2005 15:32
>To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
>
>To move this in a slightly different direction. How would people feel
>about a BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode where not only are DCs
>imp
I think that's something that needs to happen eventually; if exciting
innovations are going to continue to occur, then they really can't be
hamstrung by legacy support requirements.
joe's suggestion of a "functional level"-type mechanism for this is
quite a useful one: for those orgs that still ne
I'm not interested enough in the end result to flush my legacy apps and the
investment I have in them.
My 0.04 anyway.
From: "joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
To:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Date: Mon
D] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 7:32 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
To move this in a slightly different direction. How would people feel about
a BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode where not only are DCs impacte
joe
Sent: 10 October 2005 15:32
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
To move this in a slightly different direction. How would people feel
about a BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode where not only are DCs
impacted but every machine
it would certainly be a good way to promote the sales for client
inventory tools ;-)
/Guido
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Montag, 10. Oktober 2005 16:32
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super
To move this in a slightly different direction. How would people feel about
a BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode where not only are DCs impacted but
every machine touching the DCs are affected. I.E. MS allows multiple domains
on a single DC but not for any pre-BlackComb clients. I.E. Complete b
23 matches
Mail list logo
