I'm sorry that you feel this way, but in reality it is through the formal
requirement process that it does *not* fall into oblivion. When a requirement
comes in from your branch office, we *have* to respond to you on it. When a
requirement is submitted via ADSM-L, it may not even be seen (by the right ADSM
developers).

When we do hear requirements like this on ADSM-L, we often make note of them
for future use. The difference is that we won't necessarily get back to you
with a response, unlike the formal process which *requires* a response.

I apologize if my response came/comes across as cold or uncaring, but if you
look at my track record for participation on this forum (as well as for other
ADSM developers), I think you'll see that we really do care about our
customers. And don't forget, I was an ADSM customer myself for over 2 years,
and I haven't forgotten that. But I also have to be careful (for reasons mostly
legal) that I don't set an expectation that we *will* (or won't) change this,
nor do I want to set the expectation that ADSM-L is how requirements should be
submitted to IBM.

That said, consider your suggestion noted (as it was originally). I can't
promise if it will be delivered or when, but it'll be considered. In the mean
time, if you want to be sure it is entered into our formal requirements
database (that we do look at and respond to), you can do as I originally
recommended.

Sincerely,

Andy

Andy Raibeck
IBM Storage Systems Division
ADSM Client Development
e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com



ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU on 08/26/98 12:02:41 PM
Please respond to ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse trap.


Where it will fall into the endless oblivion of IBM.

Nevermind.


________________________
Cris Robinson
Senior Technical Analyst
Desktop Services Technical Support
Liberty Mutual Insurance
603.431.8400.54837
cris.robinson AT libertymutual DOT com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Raibeck [SMTP:storman AT US.IBM DOT COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 2:23 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse
> trap.
>
> This request should be submitted as a requirement via your local IBM
> branch.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andy
>
> Andy Raibeck
> IBM Storage Systems Division
> ADSM Client Development
> e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com
>
>
>
> ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU on 08/26/98 11:08:02 AM
> Please respond to ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> cc:
> Subject: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse trap.
>
>
> Well, I just finished installing the refreshed client code for version
> 3
> ptf5
> and I was glad to see that they changed the GUI so that an end user is
> "less" likely to
> backup a network drive.
>
> Good!
> Now lets make it just a bit better.
> What do you say we remove it as a default of any kind, but still make
> it
> an option that
> can be selected for those crazy enough to backup a mapped drive.
> Anyone?
> Anyone?
>
> Anyway. I was testing away when I thought ... Wouldn't it be better if
> it was a selectable
> menu option similar to the option:
>
> View
>   ----> Display active/inactive files
>
> Lets have:
>
> View
> -----> Network drives
>
> Of course the default would be NO, but for everyone's amusement it
> would
> still be there.
>
> Wouldn't that be cool?
>
> Take Care -
> CR
>
>
>
> ________________________
> Cris Robinson
> Senior Technical Analyst
> Desktop Services Technical Support
> Liberty Mutual Insurance
> 603.431.8400.54837
> cris.robinson AT libertymutual DOT com
>
>
>