@HopelessN00b well doing it all via SCCM gives you fine grained control.. but it's alot of work

@pauska Yeah, and considering we have basically 5 guys for >1000 users and a couple dozen sites, that's a ridiculous approach to... well, anything.

@JoelESalas Where am I at as in....?

@HopelessN00b Which metro area (if any)

@JoelESalas Oh, Columbus, OH. Pretty good town for tech.

@HopelessN00b I'd probably do the SCCM approach with that many clients. I'd be really sad if a single update killed a couple dozen sites..

(allthough you could fine-grain with different computer groups in wsus)

besides, how are you installing patches anyways without sccm? logging in to each server manually and install via windows update?

@pauska Me too... but seeing as how we don't have the time to do any testing, or a test environment that has any resemblance to production, well SCCM groups aren't gonna prevent that anyway.

@pauska Push from WSUS, auto-download and install.

@HopelessN00b Your servers are auto-installing updates?

@pauska Yeah, but only when we push the updates out. So, not really.

I hope you stage this with tiered computer groups

Imagine server X with SQL server starts to auto-install a SQL service pack while server Y who depends on SQL is also installing a upgrade.. like Lync

@pauska Yeah, wouldn't that be nice. Not that it matters much, it'll be SCCM from here on out. Also without tiered groups.

Ok

I honestly believe you're taking the good route here man

I know, SCCM is a bitch and all that.. but it pays off in the end

combine it with MDT and you have a killer deployment solution for both clients and servers

@pauska Probably are... but it's just another thing that requires more work and more time that we already have a deficit of.

@pauska When you want to manage it from a single pane

so you can upload .ipa and .apks and stuff right from config manager

and it shows you all devices associated with users in one look. So you can see all associated devices, PC, phone, tablet, for a user right in the config manager console

so you run intune AND sccm on all clients?

no no. You don't use Intune for PC management in that deployment

I vaguely remember someone talking about sccm 2012 being able to manage phones/tablets via exchange..

You use intune for MDM and SCCM for everything else

@pauska only for remote wipe/pin enforcement

the normal activesync stuff

Intune lets you sideload apps and stuff

In a "unified" deployment, Intune adds MDM for iOS, Android, Windows 8 phone, and Win RT capabilities to SCCM

So when you set it up, you log into the tenant Intune account to basically register the thing, then you install the Intune connector in SCCM and never touch Intune again. You handle MDM through SCCM and it transparently leverages Intune behind the scenes

I see

but intune can also do PC stuff right? Cause that's what I got the impression of when I heard schools talking about it

yeah it can

it's like a cloud-based SCCM sort of. There is some feature overlap

got it

But if you already have on-premise SCCM, you'd really only leverage it for MDM

that's what I thought intune was. Cloud sccm for those who don't use sccm

What it has that SCCM doesn't is actual MDM capabilities like sideloading, selective wiping, etc

MDM is interesting though. We do have a couple of mobiles/tablets that I wish we had better control of (legal/finance/hr dept)

So when you combine the two with the SCCM 2012 SP1 integration, you get the client PC management that SCCM offers, the MDM management that Intune offers which is absent otherwise, all managed from your on-premise SCCM console

Our Intune tenant is all fucked up though so I've had a hard time setting it up in our demo environment :(

We're considering blowing away everything including our Azure AD and starting over fresh haha

sounds like you got your work cut out for you

and that you finally found a job that fits

yep, pretty excited

I need to learn SCSM, SCO, and SCOM now

already have an exam on the table that I need to pass

orchestrator is cool shit

you can even make runbooks for mdt with it

yeah

I need to get up to speed

SCOM is also on the list of big things I need to learn

You can do some cool stuff with capturing SCOM alerts and feeding them to SCO for auto-ticket creation in SM

I have one SUPER DUPER important tip tho

@pauska Oh, good to know... another component I'll probably be putting into our new SCCM deployment.

don't go apeshit and install every single management pack you'll think you use

Oh?

install ONE pack (like basic windows server), and fine-tune it

cause SCOM will spam your ass down in alerts

haha yeah

I ran nagios for years

I know how to prune shit alerts

it literally alerts you for everything

and its a good reason to

@pauska Oh, yeah, we have Solarwinds for spamming ourselves with useless and counter-productive alerts.

some shops might think that a RDS session getting terminated is a big deal

for us it's "meh"

so we got like 40 of those each day..

oh and another tip

anything client-side that can trip an alert is a no-no

you don't get monitoring by just installing a pack

you have to enable the software to talk with scom

even if it's a microsoft product

some applications does not export data to event log and so on

Yeah, there's all kinds of partner training resources that I get access to now

So I have like 12 hours of internal training videos and virtual labs to do for this stuff

same here, we have a huge enterprise agreement voucher waiting

which will be used for system center stuff

vouchers!

We're the ones that come out an fill those voucher hours :)

I know you all changed your facebook profile pictures!

(grrr)

good luck on that mark, from what I've heard microsoft is anal about those things

@ewwhite ?

Not me. I write my representatives instead of setting a picture to another picture that no one ever cares about

@pauska Oh, I guess it's a US thing

@pauska It's not too bad from what I understand. We just need to turn in a project/implementation plan and follow up with implementation docs

@pauska just remember that the US is messed up.

It's more keeping your shit in order from the beginning than anything. At least that's how it was explained to me

@pauska The US supreme court is hearing arguments for striking down the gay marriage ban in California. There's a small chance that they could make a ruling that would apply to all 50 states (but that's unlikely) so people are all changing their Facebook pics to a red equals sign for marriage equality

Most likely the supreme court won't overturn California and will say that as of right now, it's up to the states

ha

@MDMarra Really? The SCOUTUS hasn't exactly been known for leaving things up to the states for a few generations now.

california has banned gay marriages? did I read that right?

@pauska years ago..

yeah

they were allowed, then banned....

@pauska California is the most fucked up state. They have a direct democracy

so the citizens vote on everything

I actually believed California were one of the good ones (smoking ban and so on)

So it's always broke since tax hikes never pass, but they always vote to implement shit that costs $$$

@MDMarra Well, not really. They have a direct democracy, except for the budget, which is what causes a lot of the more fuctup bits.

I guess every state in US is fucked up in it's own special way

I really don't get why each state gets to decide stuff like that

It's like 50 loosely affiliated countries that you can travel through without a passport

some laws should be country-wide..

@pauska indeed...

@pauska Enh. I think those are an awful thing, dictating what legal activities can and cannot be permitted on private property.

you'd think... but everything's separate...

@pauska some laws should be EU-wide?

@HopelessN00b Did you listen to any of the proceedings today?

@MichaelHampton many are

and EU is not a country

@MDMarra I did not.

(I'm sad on your behalf right now)

@pauska Not yet, but in 200 years it will be.

@MDMarra No, I was busy dicking around with new ridiculousness at work... and trying to set up Windows Updates via SCCM for our servers.

Most of the justices were pissed that the case was even in front of them

it didn't seem like any of them thought that there was even any legal standing for them to be hearing the case

But then Scalia started talking about how historically the supreme court has left it up to the states and let each decide for themselves

@MDMarra Well, that's unlikely, since if they had felt that way, they could have declined to hear the case and let the appellate ruling stand.

I wonder what the instance name is for the wsus 2012 WID..

Sotomayer and Kagan kept asking why each person though that it was appropriate for them to hear the case

found it

And Alito and Scalia kept saying that the supreme court has usually let this stuff slide until history/public opinion decides it definitively, and they specifically cited racial inequality and how long it took to get a ruling out of that supreme court

@MDMarra Interesting. Guess we'll see. If recent history is any indication though, we ought to prepare for the worst possible ruling, whatever that would be in this instance.

Very strange to see the country change in real-time.

So, it's not like a majority of justices were on the same page about why they were unhappy, or at least cautious, about this case. But for one reason or another, justices from both sides were uneasy

They were all uneasy, just for different reasons

(per usual)

mark, how do I pass function keys over to RDP on a mac?

like F5?

@pauska Use F5

that will dim down the keyboard locally :(

Or hit the fn key if you haven't configured the keyboard.

well that was dumb of me

thanks

In English... there's an option to make function keys do what they say... and reverse the operation...

@pauska hehe, Fn key got you too? Nice to know, makes me feel less stupid for the fact that it happens to me a few times a year.

@pauska fn+f5

@HopelessN00b too bad this couldn't wait until Scalia or Kennedy retire

Though, at this rate, they might try and hold on for the next election

@HopelessN00b the best ruling would be for them to completely ban all state recognition of marriage. Leave it all up to the people to do whatever the heck they want.

@MDMarra Meh. Isn't that the eternal lie of democratic politics, though? "This time, it'll be different."

Well, if one (or both) Reagan appointees were replaced by Obama appointees, this would probably already have been voted on haha

@Zoredache Yup. Government shouldn't be in the business of certifying personal relationships anyway, especially not in a discriminatory fashion (as with marriage). Odds of that ruling coming down are less than 0, though.

@Zoredache Marriage is a legal status though. For things like next-of-kin decision, tax status, insurance benefits, etc

No gay people care about it from a religious standpoint. Most religions won't have them anyway. It's all about the legal things that come with it

@MDMarra That could all be handled by basic contract law.

pretty much

Oh, and custody of children in the even of the death of one partner, etc

for me it's weird that politicians can influence who gets to be a judge or not

so what's the case against it?

@pauska The president appoints the supreme court justices but congress still has to confirm them

@pauska: thats practically how it happens anywhere

@MDMarra So government involvement in it should only extend as far as a matter of contract law. And in matters of contract law, consenting adults are free to make contracts with other consent adults, regardless of sexual affiliation or gender.

@ewwhite people might be tempted to have bareback sex, which would upset god

the advantage with the US supreme court system is, unless a single party is in power too long, it averages out

@pauska So if you have a liberal president but a conservative senate, it might be hard to get a really liberal guy through the process

Also, supreme court appointments are so important, because they're for life

@ewwhite People not liking gays and/or thinking that marriage is somehow inherently up to religion.

well, I find marriage as a legal institution a little wierd in the modern context, personally

I had a friend that voted republican and we talked about it and she was like "If I think obama could leagalize gay marriage in 4 years, I'd vote for him. But I don't think he can do that and I agree with Romney on other issues"

@JourneymanGeek Amen to that.

When I pointed out the supreme court appointemnt (or two) that could happen

And that if that was a republican appointment it would kill the chance of gay marriage at a federal level for 20+ years she was like...oh yeah

but is that any actual chance? to me it sounds like the senate is doing all it can to block obama

@MDMarra I was gonna say, there's no way a republican candidate will do a better job at that

Sometimes, supreme court appointements are the most important thing a president does during his term

@pauska Generally, you can get a liberal justice through as long as they're close to moderate

@MDMarra I thought the most important thing a president did was to decide what group of people to kill next and to make up the lies to justify it?

@MichaelHampton Nope. Justice appointments are bigger

:)

@MichaelHampton nah, the president is just the mouth piece for that kinda stuff. That is all decided by the military industrial complex.

At least in a split court like the current one

@MichaelHampton No. Justices get to decide what killings a to give a legal blessing to.

Starting a war or two has been pretty high on that list aswell. Them bushes do love their oil.

think of it. Most of these guys server 25-30 years as a supreme court justice

@pauska: Well, obama's gotten into a few too

In a court like this, if Romney had won, Scalia and Kennedy would have retired and Romney would have appointed 2 more conservatives

No gay marriage, abortion would be up for grabs

All for the next 20+ years

At least in the current state, there is a chance to get a liberal-leaning bench

I really don't understand a purely-conservative mindset.

Though Scalia might hang on until the next election to see if a republican can win

Ginsberg might retire too before obama leaves office so she can be replaced by another liberal

If she and scalia hangs on and then a republican wins the next election, we could be in some serious trouble

But we Americans luuurv to hate.

@ewwhite: in different ways

I hate stupid people.

@ewwhite: The "conservative" mindset really isn't, Unless you mean VERY small goverment

i think that fiscally conservative values make sense

Yup

the problem is that there are no viable candidates like that

just cause the government can print money, dosen't mean it should.

My politics: Stay out of my wallet, AND my bedroom!

lol

a-fucking-men

they mingle all of this religious stuff with it and people won't vote against their conscience

(or woman, or...)

@MDMarra Because people prefer to vote for the guy who promises them free stuff. The problem, as usual, is people.

so I can't see myself voting for anyone in the republican party today

Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is crazy though

He's anti-abortion, anti-birth control, etc