[Part Two Comment: Part One of this two-part message was issued
as a separate Internet newsgroup message shortly before this Part Two
message was issued. This message periodically will be updated and
reissued. Copyright 2003 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
*****Beginning of Part Two*****. ]

I believe the current Windows NT installed OS base will linger while
simultaneously the number of IT technicians and MCSEs who have
Windows NT experience will drop through attrition and career change.
Sound far-fetched? Imagine the following dialogue occuring
eighteen months from now:

*****Beginning of dialogue*****
Technical Sales Representative (TSR): "Sir, we will be happy to
upgrade your Windows NT4 network to Windows XP. Our
company has a detailed procedure to accomplish the upgrade
smoothly. We will start each site's upgrade on a Friday evening --
we want to ensure we have plenty of time to complete each site's
upgrade before Monday start-of-business.

Our first step is creating our Active Directory Specification
Document. One of our senior MCSEs will meet with your Senior
Network Administrator. We will discuss your overall network,
the functional groups operating out of each of your individual
offices, how functional groups at each office interact with
functional groups at other offices, your priorities for
upgrading each office, the number of servers at network site
and your network's WAN connectivity. This information permits
us to propose an efficient Active Directory model for your
organization, a model that will simplify network administration,
minimize the Active Directory intersite replication traffic on
your WAN, and minimize your network's OS upgrade costs. We
will provide our initial Active Directory Specification Document
for your Senior Network Administrator's review and comment. Our
Active Directory Specification Document also will specify our
proposed sequence for upgrading each of your network sites. Your
Senior Network Administrator can telephone our senior MCSE to
request clarifications while reading our initial Active Directory
Specification Document.

After receiving your Senior Network Administrator's written
comments we will address those comments in our final Active
Directory Specification Document, a document that we will provide
two weeks after receiving your Senior Network Administrator's
written comments. One week after delivering our final Active
Directory Specification Document our senior MCSE will meet your
Senior Network Administrator to address any remaining questions.
Unless your Senior Network Administrator has serious questions
that our document and our senior MCSE can not address, our final
Active Directory Specification Document specifies the Active
Directory model and the network site upgrade sequence that we
will include in our Phase II Implementation proposal.

While awaiting your Senior Network Administrator's comments on
our initial Active Directory Specification Document we will begin
writing an initial Site Upgrade Preparation Document for each of
your network sites. Each Site Upgrade Preparation Document will be
based upon our MCSEs' discussions with a Site Network Administrator
for each site named by your Senior Network Administrator. Each Site
Upgrade Preparation Document lists the steps your staff must perform
at that site to prepare the site for upgrade."

Customer: "My staff performs upgrade steps?"

TSR: "If desired we can provide MCSEs to assist your staff
during these preparatory upgrade steps. The steps include
checking the site's domain listings for correctness, making
two verified full backups the weekend prior to upgrade, purging
obsolete files from your server volumes -- selections only
your staff can make, making backups the week before the
upgrade, and defragmenting server volumes prior to upgrade.
These steps are time-consuming but necessary for a smooth
upgrade."

Customer: "How will I know if we need help during upgrade
preparation?"

TSR: "Sir, our MCSEs will work with your Site Network Administrators
and your Senior Network Administrator to determine if preparatory
support and/or site storage modifications are required. If required,
that support and/or those site storage modifications will be
documented in our Site Upgrade Preparation Document. We will
provide copies of each site's initial Site Upgrade Preparation
Document for your Site Network Administrator and Senior Network
Administrator to review. During the review our MCSEs will be
available to provide any needed clarifications over the telephone.
Two weeks after we receive your Administrators' written comments
on each initial Site Upgrade Preparation Document we will provide
that site's final Site Upgrade Preparation Document. That final
Site Upgrade Preparation Document specifies the level of materials
and effort that our Phase II implementation proposal will cost.

Once we have completed all of the final Site Upgrade Preparation
Documents we will develop an initial Upgrade Schedule for your
network. The Upgrade Schedule lists the order and duration of
each network site's upgrade for your entire network. We will
provide that initial Upgrade Schedule to your Senior Network
Administrator for comments. One week after receiving your
Administrator's comments we will provide a final Upgrade Schedule
to your Senior Network Administrator. That final Upgrade Schedule
will be the basis for our Phase II Implementation proposal's
travel costs.

Our Phase II implementation proposal will have three sections:
a Technical Section, a Schedule Section, and a Cost Section.
The final Active Directory Specification Document and each
site's Site Upgrade Preparation Document comprise the Phase II
Implementation proposal's Technical Section. The final Upgrade
Schedule comprises the Phase II Implementation proposal's
Schedule Section -- it lacks a start date because the Phase II
Implementation contract has not yet been awarded. The Cost
Section includes our cost estimate for implementing the
Phase II Implementation Technical and Schedule Sections,
includes a progress payment schedule tied to completion of
individual site upgrades, and includes Terms And Conditions
for amending the Phase II Implementation contract.

Included in the negotiations for accepting the Phase II
Implementation proposal is setting an Upgrade Schedule start
date. Once the Phase II Implementation proposal has been
accepted we will begin our preparations. We will designate
a Lead Site MCSE for each of your sites' upgrades."

Customer: "Do my people get to approve your choice of Lead
Site MCSEs?"

TSR: "We will attempt to address your preferences, Sir, but
that is not part of the Phase II Implementation contract.
Our difficulty is that we perform multiple projects simultaneously
and we keep our staff busy. Until you accept our Phase II
Implementation contract we do not know which of our MCSEs will
be available during your upgrade. We will attempt to address
your preferences, Sir, but completing the work in a quality and
timely manner is our first priority. ... Starting four weeks
before each site's upgrade our Lead Site MCSE will coordinate
with your corresponding Site Network Administrator to verify that
that site's preparation is proceeding according to the site's
Site Upgrade Preparation Document and to report any schedule
slippages -- if necessary we will (further) augment your
staff and provide additional support at additional cost.
Throughout the upgrade our Senior MCSE will work with your
Senior Network Administrator, providing written reports
concerning upgrade progress, any schedule slippages, and
the impacts and the proposed workarounds for those schedule
slippages. These written reports will permit your Senior
Network Administrator to keep you informed concerning
schedule slippages and possible cost increases.

One week before upgrade our Lead Site MCSE needs to verify
your site servers' Administrative passwords on-site personally.
Our upgrade team will arrive Friday noon on the site's upgrade
day. We want each site's Site Network Administrator to attend
that site's complete upgrade, both to witness the quality of
our work and also to answer unanticipated questions."

Customer: "That is a detailed procedure. Isn't it wasteful of
time, money and paper?"

The TSR bites his lips and rubs the back of his neck.
He continues ...

TSR: "Sir, our procedure might appear excessively restrictive, and
wasteful of time, money and paper. Yet the cost and complexity of
upgrading a multistate network is significant. This cost and
complexity mandates competent planning and documentation.
Stated tersely, Sir, 'On complicated projects, plan to succeed.'"

The Customer grimaces as his hand unconsciously moves towards
his suitcoat wallet pocket. The Customer then sighes, relaxes
and smiles.

Customer: "When can you begin?"

The TSR looks at his calendar, furrows his brow.

TSR: "Sir, I will need to speak with your Senior Network
Administrator before I can begin writing a Phase I preparatory
contract proposal. My discussions will be preliminary,
intended to allow me to estimate the labor level of effort
required to design your network's Active Directory tree, to
produce the final Active Directory Specification Document, to
produce each network site's Site Upgrade Preparation Document,
and to produce the Phase II Upgrade Schedule and Cost Proposal.
I will begin writing the Phase I contract proposal immediately
after speaking with your Senior Network Administrator. Our
reuse of legacy Active Directory specification documentation,
legacy site upgrade preparation documentation, and legacy
schedules and cost proposals will minimize your Phase I
documentation costs. We will begin our discussions and writing
the Phase I documentation immediately after you accept the
Phase I contract proposal.

A Phase II Implementation contract proposal will be included with
our Phase I final documentation. The Phase II Implementation
contract proposal is our proposal for upgrading your network's
operating system. We set a start date during contract
negotiations. Once you accept the Phase II Implementation
contract we can begin the network OS upgrade process. As far
as this location's site upgrade, currently I assume that your
location will host the Active Directory tree's
Default-First-Site-Name and that your location must be
upgraded first."

Customer: "Default-First-Site-Name?"

TSR: "Sir, I currently assume that your site will host the Active
Directory tree's Root Container, the root of the Active Directory
tree. The Default-First-Site-Name is the first domain created
within an Active Directory tree. ... Sir, once you have approved
our Phase II Implementation proposal we need at least four weeks
lead-time to complete your site's upgrade preparations, but I can
not schedule the actual upgrade until I verify Bill's schedule."

Customer: "Bill's schedule?"

TSR: "Bill is our Windows NT guru. Bill always works Windows NT
OS upgrades on Active Directory Default-First-Site-Name sites in
case we run into legacy problems. Bill knows *everything* about
Windows NT."

Customer: "It sounds like Bill is busy."

The TSR shrugs.

TSR: "Bill owns our company."

The TSR and Customer shake hands. The Customer watches out
the window as the TSR climbs into a new expensive Volvo
and drives away. The Customer thinks to himself 'I might hang
around during part of the upgrade. Bill sounds like an
interesting fellow.'
*****End of dialogue*****

'Automated upgrade' Internet-based software maintenance is
available for Windows XP and Windows 2000, but 'automated
upgrade' Internet-based software maintenance currently is
*not* available for the Windows NT4 OS.

Owning Windows NT texts gives IT technicians and MCSEs low-cost
information sources in addition to cost-based Microsoft Corporation
support when maintaining and upgrading Windows NT systems. And IMO
having Windows NT knowledge is *mandatory* when upgrading Windows NT
systems to the Windows 2000 or Windows XP OS. The Windows NT OS
operates on a localized 'domain' directory model, while Windows 2000
and Windows XP OSs utilize Active Directory, a directory model that
aggregates localized domains into a global distributed directory.
IMO a Windows NT domain should be 'scrubbed' for obsolete users and
erroneous user privileges prior to merging the Windows NT domain
into an Active Directory tree -- that is, "clean the needle before
inserting it in the haystack".

IMO having Windows NT experience (gained as on-the-job helpers or
through non-production test or home networks) is *mandatory* before
MCSEs run the automated scripts typically used to upgrade the
Windows NT OS to Windows 2000 or Windows XP. Automated scripts
sometimes stall due to unanticipated reasons. When a script stalls,
the MCSE either must be capable of completing the upgrade manually,
or of 'backing out' the partially-completed script's changes and
restoring the original Windows NT OS functionality. Owning
Windows NT texts assists in this process, and there is an extensive,
very affordable market in used Windows NT texts.

Now that Microsoft Corporation has discontinued Windows 95
support and placed Windows NT4 support on a 'cost basis',
I believe that Internet newsgroups
'Comp.Os.MS-Windows.NT.Admin.Networking' and
'Comp.Os.MS-Windows.NT.Admin.Security' will become an
increasingly busy and valuable resource.

[Part Two Comment: *****End of Part Two*****. ]

This message was not solicited by Amazon.com, any author,
or their agent(s). I receive no remuneration of any kind from
Amazon.com .

This message was not solicted by American Power Conversion
Corporation. I receive no remuneration of any kind from
American Power Conversion Corporation.

This message was not solicited by CompTia. I receive no
remuneration of any kind from CompTia.

This message was not solicited by Computer Gate International.
I receive no remuneration of any kind from Computer Gate
International.

This message was not solicited by Dell. I receive no
remuneration of any kind from Dell.

This message was not solicited by Digital Storage. I receive no
remuneration of any kind from Digital Storage.

This message was not solicited by Microsoft Corporation. I
receive no remuneration of any kind from Microsoft Corporation.

This message was not solicited by Micro Warehouse. I receive no
remuneration of any kind from Micro Warehouse.

This message was not solicited by Xerox Corporation. I
receive no remuneration of any kind from Xerox Corporation.

My opinions.

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Exit to Eden" by Anne Rice

Report this post to a moderator

I performed editing herein for readability.

In Message-id <e5avHIM7CHA.972@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
"Jamie McDaniel" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

{RB comment:
>In Message-id <20030317131456.23981.00000343@mb-fv.aol.com>,
>rball84213@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:
>
>>[Part Two Comment: Part One of this two-part message was issued
>>as a separate Internet newsgroup message shortly before this Part Two
>>message was issued. This message periodically will be updated and
>>reissued. Copyright 2003 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
>> *****Beginning of Part Two*****. ]

<snip>}

>>... The Default-First-Site-Name is the first domain created
>>within an Active Directory tree ...
>
>Great read, but I must disagree with the quoted.
>
>Jamie

Reference: "Windows 2000 Active Directory" by Alistair G. Lowe-Norris,
O'Reilly, ISBN 1-56592-638-2, pg. 62.

"When you create the first domain controller of the first domain in a
new forest, a default site called Default-First-Site-Name is created
and the domain controller is assigned to it. Subsequently, installed
domain controllers are added to this site automatically. Even if you
create multiple sites, new servers are always added to the first site.
In order to change that, you need to assign one or more IP subnets to
each site. That way, any server or workstation on a specified subnet
is automatically added to the appropriate site.

The Default-First-Site-Name can be renamed if you wish, but note that
site names cannot exceed 63 characters or contain dot (.) or space
characters."

My example assumed that the multisite business network being
converted from Windows NT to Windows XP would be served by a
single Active Directory tree.

My opinions.

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Exit to Eden" by Anne Rice

Report this post to a moderator

In Message-id <HRDda.627346$6l6.4489285@news.easynews.com>,
"Galileo" <Galileo@Was.Right> wrote:

[RB comment:
In Message-id <20030318034750.11417.00000100@mb-ce.aol.com>]
>Richard Ballard wrote:
>
>>I performed editing herein for readability.
>>
>>In Message-id <e5avHIM7CHA.972@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
>>"Jamie McDaniel" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>{RB comment:
>>>In Message-id <20030317131456.23981.00000343@mb-fv.aol.com>,
>>>rball84213@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:
>>>
>>>>[Part Two Comment: Part One of this two-part message was issued
>>>>as a separate Internet newsgroup message shortly before this Part
>>>>Two message was issued. This message periodically will be updated
>>>>and reissued. Copyright 2003 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights
>>>>Reserved. *****Beginning of Part Two*****. ]
>>
>> <snip>}
>>
>>>>... The Default-First-Site-Name is the first domain created
>>>>within an Active Directory tree ...
>>>
>>>Great read, but I must disagree with the quoted.
>>>
>>>Jamie
>>
>>Reference: "Windows 2000 Active Directory" by Alistair G. Lowe-Norris,
>>O'Reilly, ISBN 1-56592-638-2, pg. 62.
>>
>>"When you create the first domain controller of the first domain in a
>>new forest, a default site called Default-First-Site-Name is created
>>and the domain controller is assigned to it. Subsequently, installed
>>domain controllers are added to this site automatically. Even if you
>>create multiple sites, new servers are always added to the first site.
>>In order to change that, you need to assign one or more IP subnets to
>>each site. That way, any server or workstation on a specified subnet
>>is automatically added to the appropriate site.
>>
>>The Default-First-Site-Name can be renamed if you wish, but note that
>>site names cannot exceed 63 characters or contain dot (.) or space
>>characters."
>>
>>My example assumed that the multisite business network being
>>converted from Windows NT to Windows XP would be served by a
>>single Active Directory tree.
>
>Problem is that you're calling that default site a domain when it's a site.
>Even your quoted text says "default #site# called Default-First-Site-Name"
>and not "default #domain# called Default-First-Site-Name".
>
>Site does not equal domain. My guess is that you've just accidentally
>written domain when you meant site.

First, I am going to provide my original *dialogued* comments
(this is *not* an MCSE test Q/A session) within a larger context:

TSR: "... As far as this location's site upgrade, currently I
assume that your location will host the Active Directory tree's
Default-First-Site-Name and that your location must be upgraded
first."

Customer: "Default-First-Site-Name?"

TSR: "Sir, I currently assume that your site will host the Active
Directory tree's Root Container, the root of the Active Directory
tree. The Default-First-Site-Name is the first domain created
within an Active Directory tree. ... "

Now, from pg 39 of Alistair G. Lowe-Norris's text referenced above:
"Windows 2000 uses the term _site_ to mean a collection of machines
(servers, workstations, or both) that coexist on a fast network,
i.e., a physical network in a particular location with good
connectivity, between all sections of that network. In TCP/IP
terms, this would be a collection of well-connected IP subnets. ..."

*You are correct that site does not equate to domain*.

However, from the pg. 62 quote referenced above, "When you create
the first domain controller of the first domain in a new forest,
a default site called Default-First-Site-Name is created and the
domain controller is assigned to it." ***There is an
Active Directory nomenclature problem here.*** How according to
pg. 62 can (a default site called Default-First-Site-Name be
created) if according to pg. 39 the term _site_ denotes a
collection of machines -- i.e., a physical entity? The
Default-First-Site-Name is created along with the first domain
controller of the first domain in a new forest, further confusing
the nomenclature.

A more basic issue exists. The underlying issue was the assumption
that the Customer's physical location would host the
Default-First-Site-Name -- this could be an *important Customer
priority*. Yet according to pg. 62, "Subsequently, installed
domain controllers are added to this site automatically. Even
if you create multiple sites, new servers are always added to the
first site. In order to change that, you need to assign one or
more IP subnets to each site." This quotation implies that the
physical location of the Default-First-Site-Name affects the
network's IP subnet structure, the network's WAN loading, or both.

These are not issues discussed with non-technical Customers --
Root Container location, WAN connectivity costs (and potentially
required WAN upgrades), and sequencing of site upgrades are issues
that interest non-technical Customers. The dialogue I originally
presented addressed those issues on "Day 0" (before commencement
of technical discussions) and addressed those issues in what I
believe was an appropriate level-of-detail and in a manner that
avoided what I believe are Active Directory nomenclature problems.

Finally, Active Directory's usage of the word _site_ is confusing
when speaking with Customers. I believe most Customers would
interpret the word _site_ as denoting "My physical premises at
this location." In my opinion a strong Active Directory selling
point is its capability for centralized administration of
networks supporting multiple locations. Yet Active Directory
nomenclature utilizes the term _site_ uniquely and in a manner
*not* intuitive to Customers.

*****And the Earth revolves around sales to Customers.*****

I probably will modify the dialogue verbage before I reissue the
original document, but I will modify the verbage very little.

My opinions.

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Tantra: The Art of Conscious Loving"

Report this post to a moderator

In message-id <cNGda.3493351$zx5.527583@news.easynews.com>
"Galileo" <Galileo@Was.Right> wrote:

>Richard Ballard wrote:
[RB comment:
>In message-id <20030318092536.29007.00000157@mb-cn.aol.com>
>Richard Ballard (rball84213@aol.com) wrote:
>]
>>TSR: "Sir, I currently assume that your site will host the Active
>>Directory tree's Root Container, the root of the Active Directory
>>tree. The Default-First-Site-Name is the first domain created
>>within an Active Directory tree. ... "
>
>I'm not quite sure if you've actually noticed what we're talking
>about but were talking about the 3rd line of the above (not including
>your name), 10th word along. Should be the word "site" and not
>"domain". It's such a piffling minor error I'm not surprised you're
>missing it:
>
>The Default-First-Site-Name is the first domain created within an
>Active Directory tree. ...
>Should read:
>The Default-First-Site-Name is the first site created within an
>Active Directory tree. ...
>
>I apologise for the trivial nature of the this post but you can
>blame Jamie for being the one to first mention it :-)

I am going to quote verbatim in a larger context my reply to
*you* from my previously referenced message:

$$$$$Beginning of my previous reply to you$$$$$
First, I am going to provide my original *dialogued* comments
(this is *not* an MCSE test Q/A session) within a larger context:

TSR: "... As far as this location's site upgrade, currently I
assume that your location will host the Active Directory tree's
Default-First-Site-Name and that your location must be upgraded
first."

Customer: "Default-First-Site-Name?"

TSR: "Sir, I currently assume that your site will host the Active
Directory tree's Root Container, the root of the Active Directory
tree. The Default-First-Site-Name is the first domain created
within an Active Directory tree. ... "

Now, from pg 39 of Alistair G. Lowe-Norris's text referenced above:
"Windows 2000 uses the term _site_ to mean a collection of machines
(servers, workstations, or both) that coexist on a fast network,
i.e., a physical network in a particular location with good
connectivity, between all sections of that network. In TCP/IP
terms, this would be a collection of well-connected IP subnets. ..."

*You are correct that site does not equate to domain*.

However, from the pg. 62 quote referenced above, "When you create
the first domain controller of the first domain in a new forest,
a default site called Default-First-Site-Name is created and the
domain controller is assigned to it." ***There is an
Active Directory nomenclature problem here.*** How according to
pg. 62 can (a default site called Default-First-Site-Name be
created) if according to pg. 39 the term _site_ denotes a
collection of machines -- i.e., a physical entity? The
Default-First-Site-Name is created along with the first domain
controller of the first domain in a new forest, further confusing
the nomenclature.

A more basic issue exists. The underlying issue was the assumption
that the Customer's physical location would host the
Default-First-Site-Name -- this could be an *important Customer
priority*. Yet according to pg. 62, "Subsequently, installed
domain controllers are added to this site automatically. Even
if you create multiple sites, new servers are always added to the
first site. In order to change that, you need to assign one or
more IP subnets to each site." This quotation implies that the
physical location of the Default-First-Site-Name affects the
network's IP subnet structure, the network's WAN loading, or both.

These are not issues discussed with non-technical Customers --
Root Container location, WAN connectivity costs (and potentially
required WAN upgrades), and sequencing of site upgrades are issues
that interest non-technical Customers. The dialogue I originally
presented addressed those issues on "Day 0" (before commencement
of technical discussions) and addressed those issues in what I
believe was an appropriate level-of-detail and in a manner that
avoided what I believe are Active Directory nomenclature problems.

Finally, Active Directory's usage of the word _site_ is confusing
when speaking with Customers. I believe most Customers would
interpret the word _site_ as denoting "My physical premises at
this location." In my opinion a strong Active Directory selling
point is its capability for centralized administration of
networks supporting multiple locations. Yet Active Directory
nomenclature utilizes the term _site_ uniquely and in a manner
*not* intuitive to Customers.

*****And the Earth revolves around sales to Customers.*****
$$$$$End of my previous reply to you$$$$$

I previously answered your concerns. My previous reply to you
is repeated above.

Your supplying a one-sentence change does not completely answer
*your* concerns, and does not address the larger concerns that
my reply raised.

Your one-sentence change accomplishes very little. The chief
accomplishment of your one-sentnce change is that in a Google
listing you would have gotten the last word *had I not responded*.

I think we have beaten this particular horse to death. Any
further discussion is a time waster. I will update my document
as I choose when I choose to reissue it.

My opinions.

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Tantra: The Art of Conscious Loving"

Report this post to a moderator

>circa 19 Mar 2003 01:59:31 GMT, in microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse,
>Richard Ballard (rball84213@aol.com) said,
>>
>>I previously answered your concerns. My previous reply to you
>>is repeated above.
>>
>>Your supplying a one-sentence change does not completely answer
>>*your* concerns, and does not address the larger concerns that
>>my reply raised.
>>
>>Your one-sentence change accomplishes very little. The chief
>>accomplishment of your one-sentnce change is that in a Google
>>listing you would have gotten the last word *had I not responded*.
>>
>>I think we have beaten this particular horse to death. Any
>>further discussion is a time waster. I will update my document
>>as I choose when I choose to reissue it.
>>
>I may have missed other replies in some other newsgroup, but from
>what I see of this thread, a suggestion was made that you replace the
>word "domain" in a specific sentence with the word "site". That
>recommendation would result in your statement being correct, which is
>not the case as it is currently written.

Thank you for your comment.

Previously I stated (to a different respondent) "*You are correct
that site does not equate to domain*." That statement is *sufficient*
to answer the semantics problem.

I later stated (to the same respondent, repeated above) "Your
supplying a one-sentence change does not completely answer *your*
concerns, and does not address the larger concerns that my reply
raised." I believe that solving problems has greater value to
Customers than correcting minor semantic concerns.

Later I will update my document as I choose when I choose to
reissue it.

My opinions.

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Tantra: The Art of Conscious Loving"

Report this post to a moderator

In message-id <QA3ea.2859928$TJ.393814@post-02.news.easynews.com>
"Galileo" <Galileo@Was.Right> wrote:

>LOL I really don't know why he's getting so upset about having a
>minor error pointed out but I'm beginning to enjoy it. If he hated
>that he'll hate my next comment:
>That essay was filled with crappy management speak. That the
>unneccesary bollocky language that was born in the 80's and has
>lived on in those crappy seminars everyone gets tortured with
>occasionally. Words like "culture", "ethic", "semantic" and
>"pro-active" (although he didn't go as low as to use the words
>synergy or symbiotic relationship).

"language that was born in the 80's". Thank you. Now, let us
discuss the real issue.

The United States domestic economy has been downsizing and
stagnating for quite a while -- we are awash in credit debt
and printing press money that are funding a long-standing and
permanent trade deficit. An expensive war is beginning -- one
result is that labor utilized in wartime activities is withdrawn
from domestically-productive activities and from taxation. In
addition, I believe that energy prices (principally petroleum)
have risen permanently. Since 9/11 security activities in the
United States have increased *tremendously and expensively* --
security does not produce goods or services. The overall result
is permanent higher-cost-of-living and permanent decline in the
United States' standard of living. Less money to invest in
*everything*, including computer network upgrades.

I am not a professional economist -- I dabble. I believe that
our mountain of credit debt and printing press money is leading
us into inflationary times, times similar to the 1980's
inflation of former President Reagan's administration. During
President Reagan's administration with judicious shopping you
could find long-term FDIC-guaranteed Certificates of Deposit that
paid fifteen percent annual interest. When financial institutions
pay high interest rates, they are seeking investment capital in
a poor market. Credit and printing press money do not last
forever. I believe that inflationary times will return, resulting
in less money to invest in *everything*, including computer
network upgrades.

Interesting text: "The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan
Revolution Failed" by David A. Stockman. Mr. Stockman was
Director of the Office of Management and Budget during
former President Reagan's first term.

When purse strings are tight, motivating Customers is *very*
important. *If Customers choose not to upgrade, MCSEs do not work.*
"That essay was filled with crappy management speak" that helped
a Customer manager justify upgrading his network. I am sorry that
you do not appreciate the issue or my style.

[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
>>Your one-sentence change accomplishes very little. The chief
>>accomplishment of your one-sentnce change is that in a Google
>>listing you would have gotten the last word *had I not responded*.
>
>I look forward to his reply because we all now how important those
>Google listings are!!! LOL

I believe that Internet newsgroups and Google are sufficiently
important that I provide messages using *only one e-mail identity*,
and I include *my real name* in all of my Internet messages.

>PS. Please don't explain what a site is again cos I already know
>(having been an mcse for bloody ages).

Congratulations on your successful career. I wish you continued
success and prosperity.

My opinions.

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Tantra: The Art of Conscious Loving"

Report this post to a moderator

In message-id <20030320060552.27707.00000158@mb-ml.aol.com>
rball84213@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:

>The United States domestic economy has been downsizing and
>stagnating for quite a while -- we are awash in credit debt
>and printing press money that are funding a long-standing and
>permanent trade deficit. An expensive war is beginning -- one
>result is that labor utilized in wartime activities is withdrawn
>from domestically-productive activities and from taxation. In
>addition, I believe that energy prices (principally petroleum)
>have risen permanently. Since 9/11 security activities in the
>United States have increased *tremendously and expensively* --
>security does not produce goods or services. The overall result
>is permanent higher-cost-of-living and permanent decline in the
>United States' standard of living. Less money to invest in
>*everything*, including computer network upgrades.

Further comments.

I believe that increased energy costs (which increase the cost of
travel to Customer sites) plus security concerns will encourage
the use of products like Systems Management Server (currently
SMS 2.0, soon SMS 2003) and Microsoft Operations Manager
(currently MOM, soon MOM 2004) combined with standardized software
configurations and remote access techniques. Standardized software
configurations enhance software (and security) reliability and
maintainability. Products like SMS 2.0 and MOM permit IT system
'en masse operations, upgrade and maintenance' administration
using remote access techniques. These products decrease network
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) while minimizing nonproductive travel
costs. SMS 2.0, MOM and remote access techniques become
increasingly attractive solutions to increased energy and travel
costs. Our current use of telephone-based multi-level Help Desks
is a precedent for the trend towards increased use of SMS 2.0,
MOM and remote access techniques.

This trend is a mixed blessing for MCSEs. SMS 2.0, MOM and
remote access allows one MCSE to operate, maintain and upgrade
increased numbers of IT equipment -- increased productivity
equates to increased job security. But products like SMS 2.0
and MOM are among Microsoft Corporation's 'upper tier' products --
all MCSEs are not acquainted with these products. MCSEs require
additional study to achieve competence using these 'upper tier'
products (and to qualify for their increased job security).

Another mixed blessing: IT systems operation and maintenance
using remote access techniques implies less contact with the
Customer and the Customer's IT systems, and more time working
at a remote access terminal. Remote access MCSEs tend to become
narrowly specialized, and remote access MCSEs have *less
opportunity to excel* working directly with the Customer --
***anonymity is a cost-effective curse for the MCSE***. Given
less direct contact with the Customer, I believe that IT
employers deliberately will choose their best (both technical-
and people-skilled) MCSEs when direct Customer contact is
necessary. I believe that higher energy costs create a de facto
barrier to individual MCSEs' advancement. Study, and increased
technical- and people-skills are the ladders over that barrier.

I believe that both the United States domestic economy and the
IT environment are experiencing permanent changes. We all will
survive, but study and increased technical- and people-skills
will continue to mark the route to MCSE prosperity.

My opinions.

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Tantra: The Art of Conscious Loving"

Report this post to a moderator

In message-id <20030321064656.07409.00000233@mb-ca.aol.com>
rball84213@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:

>In message-id <20030320060552.27707.00000158@mb-ml.aol.com>
>rball84213@aol.com (Richard Ballard) wrote:
>
>>The United States domestic economy has been downsizing and
>>stagnating for quite a while -- we are awash in credit debt
>>and printing press money that are funding a long-standing and
>>permanent trade deficit. An expensive war is beginning -- one
>>result is that labor utilized in wartime activities is withdrawn
>>from domestically-productive activities and from taxation. In
>>addition, I believe that energy prices (principally petroleum)
>>have risen permanently. Since 9/11 security activities in the
>>United States have increased *tremendously and expensively* --
>>security does not produce goods or services. The overall result
>>is permanent higher-cost-of-living and permanent decline in the
>>United States' standard of living. Less money to invest in
>>*everything*, including computer network upgrades.
>
>Further comments.
>
>I believe that increased energy costs (which increase the cost of
>travel to Customer sites) plus security concerns will encourage
>the use of products like Systems Management Server (currently
>SMS 2.0, soon SMS 2003) and Microsoft Operations Manager
>(currently MOM, soon MOM 2004) ...

Minor correction: The current Microsoft Operations Manager version
is MOM 2000.

> ... combined with standardized software
>configurations and remote access techniques. Standardized software
>configurations enhance software (and security) reliability and
>maintainability. Products like SMS 2.0 and MOM permit IT system
>'en masse operations, upgrade and maintenance' administration
>using remote access techniques. These products decrease network
>Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) while minimizing nonproductive travel
>costs. SMS 2.0, MOM and remote access techniques become
>increasingly attractive solutions to increased energy and travel
>costs. Our current use of telephone-based multi-level Help Desks
>is a precedent for the trend towards increased use of SMS 2.0,
>MOM and remote access techniques.
>
>This trend is a mixed blessing for MCSEs. SMS 2.0, MOM and
>remote access allows one MCSE to operate, maintain and upgrade
>increased numbers of IT equipment -- increased productivity
>equates to increased job security. But products like SMS 2.0
>and MOM are among Microsoft Corporation's 'upper tier' products --
>all MCSEs are not acquainted with these products. MCSEs require
>additional study to achieve competence using these 'upper tier'
>products (and to qualify for their increased job security).
>
>Another mixed blessing: IT systems operation and maintenance
>using remote access techniques implies less contact with the
>Customer and the Customer's IT systems, and more time working
>at a remote access terminal. Remote access MCSEs tend to become
>narrowly specialized, and remote access MCSEs have *less
>opportunity to excel* working directly with the Customer --
>***anonymity is a cost-effective curse for the MCSE***. Given
>less direct contact with the Customer, I believe that IT
>employers deliberately will choose their best (both technical-
>and people-skilled) MCSEs when direct Customer contact is
>necessary. I believe that higher energy costs create a de facto
>barrier to individual MCSEs' advancement. Study, and increased
>technical- and people-skills are the ladders over that barrier.
>
>I believe that both the United States domestic economy and the
>IT environment are experiencing permanent changes. We all will
>survive, but study and increased technical- and people-skills
>will continue to mark the route to MCSE prosperity.

My opinions.

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Tantra: The Art of Conscious Loving"

Report this post to a moderator