[cisco-voip] UCCX Upgrade question

Sat May 23 22:14:00 EDT 2015

<beginrant>
Is there an ISO/application that this method does not work with?

http://htluo.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-to-make-non-bootable-iso-image.html

I have never really understood the true purpose of the whole 
non-bootable ISO thing.  It seems trivial to work around, yet leaves at 
least a veiled threat that your system won't be supported if you do it.  
Did they really build logging into the installer to check and see if you 
are using a "original" bootable ISO, after modifying an image it still 
passes the image verification??

You are going to license it anyways and who in the right mind would want 
to take the risks associated with an unlicensed and unsupported system?

So why make the install an unneeded complex hassle for the installer?  
What benefit does this provide to anyone except someone being paid per 
hour to install a system and the apparent outsourced contracting groups 
that works under the GLO BU?

As for downloading RHEL, seems Redhat does now require a portal login 
before allowing you to download the images.  I don't recall this being 
the case a few years ago.  Some question for RHEL, why would I want to 
run your software for a critical purpose if you aren't going to provide 
updates without an account?  If you don't provide updates I'm going to 
either purchase the support to run the system in a supported manner 
(which production environment why would I want the personal risk from 
not doing this in the first place?), or use CentOS which will provide at 
least provide updates and support from the community (or some other 
distro).  I highly doubt, there is a large or even small user base of 
bootable UCM systems being used to run other applications on RHEL.  I 
guess it's possible but why?

Please Cisco, if you feel the need to implement licensing controls in 
your software please do it in a simple, effective and well implemented 
and supported manner.  Having correctly licensed products not function 
well in production environments do to issues with the licensing modules 
in simply unacceptable when the software is properly licensed.

ELM/PLM have been a great overall improvement but seems to function best 
with UCM and CUC, they seem to still have some issues related to CER 
under PLM.  I understand that LRM for Cisco Agent Desktop is likely not 
originally created by Cisco but Calabrio, and will be obsolete soon; but 
some of just the licensing related issues with this product is frankly a 
reason to start drinking at an unhealthy rate in and of itself. It 
should be as simple to re-license your products with valid support 
contracts as ordering from Amazon, but we just aren't there yet.  It 
still feels like going to a dentist which uses improper equipment and 
training to have a tooth drilled with as trying to have 
licensing at cisco.com fulfill a manual order correctly in the first few 
attempts, let alone a timely manner.

</endrant>

-Gentoo

On 2015-05-22 09:22, Anthony Holloway wrote:
> Thanks Brian.  And from what you recall, this whole "don't make it
> easy" game which TAC engages in....how do we play it with them?
> 
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM Brian Meade <bmeade90 at vt.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Agreement with Red Hat.  They don't want people being able to
>> easily download Red Hat.  There were some rumors of CUCM 11.x being
>> on CentOS which would allow us to just keep the bootables on
>> cisco.com [1] but I don't think that's happening any more.
>> 
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Anthony Holloway
>> <avholloway+cisco-voip at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I know there are some TAC people on this mailing list, so what's up
>> with the bootable image topic?  Are we not entitled to a copy, or
>> do we have to exchange favors in order to upgrade our
>> customers/selves?
>> 
>> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 5:45 PM NateCCIE <nateccie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> TAC will get you the ISO if you ask nice/ push hard enough.
>> Especially if you get a Cisco employee and not an outsource
>> engineer. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On May 21, 2015, at 2:40 PM, Justin Steinberg <jsteinberg at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> that's not possible afaik
>> 
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I have CCX 8.5.1; I am going to 10.6.1.
>> 
>> I am NOT doing an in-place upgrade. I'm having issues sourcing the
>> .ISO for their current version, so I can restore/jump upgrade it to
>> 10.6.1 and get a same version DRS to import.
>> 
>> Is it possible to extract the historical reporting data *only*, and
>> move that into CUIC (CCX 10.6.1). I could be asking something
>> ridiculous; just not that versed in this area of CCX.
>> 
>> Any other ideas? (in-place upgrade just isn't possible due to other
>> factors not-relevant to this question).
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> ryan
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip [2]
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip [2]
>  _______________________________________________
>  cisco-voip mailing list
>  cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>  https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip [2]
> 
> _______________________________________________
>  cisco-voip mailing list
>  cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>  https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip [2]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://cisco.com
> [2] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip