I agree - there are SOME things that were designed really well in the
AC. 

I've been VERY impressed that it finally is much easier for newbies to
create management classes. The library creation tool is also excellent,
and (with the exception of one mis-labelled option) the DRM and checkin
wizards are great for new users.  When I'm working with new admins who
aren't used to the old GUI, they don't seem to have any trouble or
complaints with the AC conceptually, just with the bugs (like the java
command line frequently doesn't work, and the screen jumps out of
position too often).

On the other hand, putting a GOOD DESIGN on top of a BAD STRUCTURE was a
BAD PLAN.  Did any of those "I-WANT" statements specify "I WANT A TSM
FRONT END THAT REQUIRES WEBSPHERE AND A BIGGER HOST THAN I CURRENTLY
NEED TO RUN MY TSM SERVER?"
I Doooooo't think so!  It's like trying to stuff a hippo into a
perambulator.  It's like chartering a 60-seat chauferred bus to buy eggs
at the 7-11.  It's like donning a full moon-walk life-support suit to
clean the litter box.  It's like..well, better stop.    

And WHERE did this notion of "one consolidated front end" come from?
Who does it help?  In any site with more than 1 staff person, the
division of labor is that the Storage person uses all the storage
products, not just the Tivoli products;  the Security person uses all
the security products, not just the Tivoli security products, etc.  It
makes sense to drive all the Tivoli STORAGE products from one
(non-websphere) interface, but not "everything".

On top of that, the product was clearly released before it was fully
cooked (telling new TSM users to use the command line for DRM was
absurd), and the original decision to tell people there would NOT be a
transition tool was ill-considered, arrogant, and as might be expected,
disastrous.  As are the continuing problems with packaging,
installation, and documentation.  The installation problems and the lack
of a useful command-line capability seem to be what frustrate
experienced TSM admins the most, not the AC design.

In fact, I spoke at one point with someone who had participated in a
customer workshop to preview the ISC design.  He said "We all really
liked the design.  But they DIDN"T TELL US it was going to be so
topheavy and so slow and require Websphere".  Another case of how to get
bad results from surveys... but that's a different soapbox. 

At any rate, I don't think the Admin Center itself is the problem.  It's
what lurks beneath...

My opinion and nobody else's..

Wanda



-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Allen S. Rout
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:21 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: TSM 5.3 web gui


>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:28:06 -0500, Richard Mochnaczewski
<Richard.Mochnaczewski AT STANDARDLIFE DOT CA> said:


> I had some problems with the setup of the Admin Console. I placed a
> call with IBM, [...]


The ranting about the ISC was legion in Oxford, and clearly a source
of frustration for the IBMers there; there were many questions or
"I-want" type statements which were answered with "We're doing that in
the Admin Console".  It's clear that they've placed a lot of effort
and thought into the AC design.

I'm starting to think that we, TSM admins, are just too varied a bunch
to have our needs met within the constraints of one such system and
the ideology that must be imposed with it.  Maybe IBM can just ditch
the GUI idea entirely, and leave the market to the 3rd party tools.
Or maybe they can ditch the idea that the GUI is 'full featured', and
deploy something intended to coddle folks who are never going to make
the effort, and omit the hard bits.



I'm in sympathy with the desire to web-ify many administrative aspects
of many IBM tools under a unified umbrella.  But the One Ring to Rule
Them All attitude has well-documented failure modes, and nobody wants
to be Sauron at the end.

It gets worse when the One Ring is as (pardon me) shaky and
unmaintainable as Websphere.  We've had deep, deep _DEEP_ problems
with that product.  A low point was when a level 2 tech in all
seriousness told us he wasn't sure the product supported HTTP.

No, really. I can't make that up.  Our tech replied that maybe they
should change the product name to just "Sphere".

I've been through the AIX install of the ISC and AC on a disposable
LPAR several times now; even with a fresh clean box and support on the
line, we've not been able to get a working console up, which I find
more amusing than irritating, any more.



- Allen S. Rout