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 touching the DCs are affected. I.E. MS
allows multiple domains
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, 2005 8:39 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Jumping
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] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Hmm... No, I disagree
@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 touching the DCs are affected. I.E. MS
allows multiple domains
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 8:39 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Again, I am speaking legacy baggage. If you were a UNIX developer, would you
rather stick
] 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 isolation of processes and threads ...
A CS teacher once told me that in general in computers whenever
]
[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 problem, true. But I see that as
the price for the flexibility.
It's
]
[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 software that relies on old API's? How do you explain WINS
requirements?? ;)
Exchange does as Exchange does
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
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
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
impacted but every machine
] 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 impacted
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: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:32:26 -0400
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
: [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 touching the DCs are affected. I.E. MS allows
multiple domains on a single DC
]
[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 people feel
about
a BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
: 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 outdated
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 implemented. If it is really
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:45 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] BlackComb Super Forest Functional Mode
Don't get lost in the details yet. I tried to give a specific example to
help clarify the general concept of I have switch labeled Hurray that shuts
off legacy
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 several years before
the
blackcomb
.
-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 worry
21 matches
Mail list logo
