SP1. Is this a beta release or just a bad joke ?

Discussion in 'Windows Small Business Server' started by Ray Collins, May 29, 2005.

  1. Ray Collins

    Joe Guest

    No, but then it's not my job to, nor yours either. But if the Microsoft
    Corporation didn't have the confidence to put it on *all* their
    production machines successfully (what do you mean, they all use
    straight 2003?) then it should not have gone out of the door.

    The beta test wasn't the issue. That gets the broad picture correct, and
    beta testers can work around small difficulties. The finished version
    of this kind of upgrade is a different matter, and just isn't the kind
    of situation where details can be ignored and corners cut.

    OK, if someone has gone in and hacked the registry to death, then
    there's some excuse for difficulty in upgrading, but nothing a user
    can find Microsoft instructions for should be unsupported. Nobody
    should ever have to reverse configurations, or reinstall part of
    the system, just so an upgrade installer doesn't freak out.
     
    Joe, May 31, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ray Collins

    Scott Davis Guest

    <snip>
    MVPs:

    Please feedback to your contacts at the mothership: This issue is relevant.

    I, like BJ, perceived the appropriate modus operandi to be "don't
    install the 'normal' 2003 server SP1 on SBS because it'll break stuff".
    Wait for 60 days, and the scripted-all-to-heck SP1 for SBS will be
    released.

    Now we are told to install said SP.

    What this is -- is CRAPPY process control. Utter shit, frankly.

    I don't think I can express my lack of faith in Microsoft's process
    control adequately.


    Personally, I had high hopes. Microsoft has been talking up a storm
    about security for many moons. Based on the improvements in XP - SP2, I
    had some faith.








    This debacle has shattered my trust.

    Shattered. Utterly.

    I have no faith in Microsoft to either follow up on what it publishes as
    best practice, or deliver secure products.



    Apologies for the profanity.

    -- Scott.




    ====================================================
    Scott Davis, 45 Dunfield Av, Unit 2117
    Self-Employed Toronto, ON, Canada, M4S 2H4
    Tech Consultant Mobile. (416) 432-4334
    The IP addrs I use to post all UseNet:
    66.207.215.240/29
    ====================================================
     
    Scott Davis, Jun 5, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ray Collins

    Scott Davis Guest

    Service packs don't generate revenue.

    Microsoft just does not care.. because it is nearly impossible to
    report on. Oh, and the total code size is like 900MB. Some folks might
    realize what a farce that is.. if the SP was bundled into one large file.

    Heck, generating security stats for SBS would be a nightmare -- you know
    how many un-aware folks deploy it? Thankfully v2003 is fairly secure
    "out of the box".. (when compared to NT4/v2000..)





    Don't hold your breath, Bobby.

    I'll wager 10 american dollars that you'll install the SP before it's
    re-released.



    Best wishes,
    -- Scott.



    ====================================================
    Scott Davis, 45 Dunfield Av, Unit 2117
    Self-Employed Toronto, ON, Canada, M4S 2H4
    Tech Consultant Mobile. (416) 432-4334
    The IP addrs I use to post all UseNet:
    66.207.215.240/29
    ====================================================
     
    Scott Davis, Jun 5, 2005
    #23
  4. Ray Collins

    Scott Davis Guest

    Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] wrote:

    A third party site is the defacto "official" location for documentation?

    This, in itself, speaks volumes.

    What it says is "Microsoft dosen't care enough to adequately document
    their own product.. and the community had to compensate for that."


    Not great.


    Susan,

    I'm posting several "bashes" because I think Microsoft has dropped the
    ball and needs to hear it from "us" -- the field admins.


    Would you be kind enough to read my posts from today -- and if you agree
    with any of my beliefs, communicate them to anyone at Microsoft that's
    got any authority ..?



    Best,

    -- Scott.






    ====================================================
    Scott Davis, 45 Dunfield Av, Unit 2117
    Self-Employed Toronto, ON, Canada, M4S 2H4
    Tech Consultant Mobile. (416) 432-4334
    The IP addrs I use to post all UseNet:
    66.207.215.240/29
    ====================================================
     
    Scott Davis, Jun 5, 2005
    #24
  5. I disagree.

    I believe it was 'Do not _yet_ install Windows Server 2003 SP1 onto SBS2003,
    wait for SBS SP1 to integrate the many parts.' Now that the parts are
    available, and the integrator is ready, and the procedures are published
    (both the MS one and the M&M one) we should just 'get on with life'.

    What disappoints me most about W2K3/SBS SP1 is that since SBS 4.5 MS have
    worked towards 'all component service packs can be applied to SBS' and we,
    as a group, including the personal contributors and MVP's have tried to
    build this into the 'mindset'. W2K3 SP1 broke SBS, I'll never trust MS
    again, if I did before. :)

    However, I'll get over it.
     
    SuperGumby [SBS MVP], Jun 5, 2005
    #25
  6. actually, most of the issues addressed by the document on the M&M site are
    for people who didn't do it (SBS install) right in the first place.

    I've installed SBS SP1 onto servers:
    Set up bog default, works perfectly.
    Set up with 'standard customisations' (ie. stop SBS install after OS
    install, add drivers, create partitions, specify locations during
    installation wizard), works perfectly.
    Set up with odd arrangements but still within limits, works perfectly.
    Set up with a high level of customisation but nothing silly, works well and
    can work.

    What I'm _-*DREADING*-_ is the several systems I recently inherited support
    of which are SO FAR OUT LEFT FIELD that I've questioned whether I want to
    support them at all, let alone bring them up to date PRE SP1, and then to
    bring them up to date POST SP1, sends cold shivers down my spine.
     
    SuperGumby [SBS MVP], Jun 5, 2005
    #26
  7. Ray Collins

    Scott Davis Guest

    SuperGumby [SBS MVP] wrote:
    Each admin has her own style. I've flogged Exchange for 7+ years, "NT"
    for about a decade.

    What could they do that would be so bad..?




    <snip>

    ====================================================
    Scott Davis, 45 Dunfield Av, Unit 2117
    Self-Employed Toronto, ON, Canada, M4S 2H4
    Tech Consultant Mobile. (416) 432-4334
    The IP addrs I use to post all UseNet:
    66.207.215.240/29
    ====================================================
     
    Scott Davis, Jun 5, 2005
    #27
  8. Ray Collins

    Scott Davis Guest

    We can disagree. I'm cool with that. I hope you're cool enough to
    continue communicating..


    Okay - assuming you are correct, let us consider this:

    Was Microsoft not aware that they'd just dump the 2003Server SP1 -
    unmolested - out for SBS?

    I'm thinking "hell yeah".

    Again, this is really poopy process control.

    If the Win2003 Server SP1 can be applied to SBS - and it does not
    "break" anything.. why were we not advised to go ahead and install it
    three months ago?

    I just don't understand. My assumption that W2k3/sp1 dosen't break SBS
    installations might be incorrect -- but I'm fairly sure that I'm correct.


    Agreed. I'm getting on with my life -- I'm not "freakin' out" about this.

    All I want to accomplish is to ask anyone that can -- to take my
    criticism and communicate it back to Microsoft.

    What'd it break? Honestly, I don't know. I'd appreciate it if you'd be
    specific.


    Yup. Life goes on..



    Best wishes,
    -- Scotty.




    ====================================================
    Scott Davis, 45 Dunfield Av, Unit 2117
    Self-Employed Toronto, ON, Canada, M4S 2H4
    Tech Consultant Mobile. (416) 432-4334
    The IP addrs I use to post all UseNet:
    66.207.215.240/29
    ====================================================
     
    Scott Davis, Jun 5, 2005
    #28
  9. disagreement is the main reason for communication, else we'd just nod at
    each other. :)
    The problem was that the Windows Server 2003 SP1 dev guys and the Windows
    Update guys didn't communicate properly with the SBS dev guys.
    umm, applying Win2K3 SP1 to SBS2K3, pre SBS SP1, broke some things. Most of
    which could be backed out of. Note the word _most_.
    MS are aware of our concerns, and as this group is 'watched' by support
    personel (monitored would not be the correct term) your comment is sure to
    add to existing evidence without further intervention. HOWEVER (there's
    always one of them, hey?), it may be of benefit if you also sent something
    to [email protected]
    it's history, we're over it.

    A senior member of the SBS team published a document at the time, detailing
    the problems, the resolutions, and the items which couldn't be addressed
    until the SBS service pack became available.

    OK!!! I ADMIT IT!!!! I CARE ALMOST AS MUCH AS SUSAN AND SOMETIMES GET
    PROTECTIVE!!! It wasn't SBS dev fault, it was those lazy buggers in W2K3
    land (you know, those ones with their 'corporate mindset') who didnt test
    their release against the most popular SMB product MS have ever produced. It
    was WU's fault (and bloody lazy, non caring, admins who AU their servers)
    who compounded it by allowing W2k3 SP1 to hit SBS before it was ready for
    it.
     
    SuperGumby [SBS MVP], Jun 5, 2005
    #29
  10. Ray Collins

    Scott Davis Guest

    Easy, Gumby.

    I just have a couple questions..

    Unnh-hunh. Poopy process control, I repeat.



    Apparently, I'm not. I'd like to know the details...


    Could you provide a link to said document? I'd vm appreciate it!


    We all care, Gumby.

    However, I don't care which teams' "fault" it was.. to me, it's a
    product from MS and I couldn't care less which internal group poops-up
    the QA. I know that the QA sucks - and I'd like to know the details re:
    SP1/2k3 server.

    Hunh? My 6 SBS2k3 installs didn't AU win/sp1 automagically. I don't
    understand what you're getting at. Am I a freak?

    Hey, my 6 could be all exceptions.. but that's statistically improbbable.

    Chances are -- I'm a freak.. I know.



    Best,
    -- Scott.



    ====================================================
    Scott Davis, 45 Dunfield Av, Unit 2117
    Self-Employed Toronto, ON, Canada, M4S 2H4
    Tech Consultant Mobile. (416) 432-4334
    The IP addrs I use to post all UseNet:
    66.207.215.240/29
    ====================================================
     
    Scott Davis, Jun 5, 2005
    #30
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.