ADSM-L

Re: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse trap.

1998-08-26 16:51:51
Subject: Re: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse trap.
From: "Robinson, Cris" <Cris.Robinson AT LIBERTYMUTUAL DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 16:51:51 -0400
Thanks Andy -
I guess my frustrations are based more on the fact that I
see more responsiveness from the listserver than I do
From the Local IBM office. I honestly believe that those requests that
you receive are acted upon and the submitter receives a response.

My concern is with the folks at the local IBM site who never forward
the requests. I personally would like to by-pass them and have
everything go through another channel. when we purchased ADSM we
submitted
a handful of enhancements and never heard another word.

Anyway -
I have some hope here. At least I got a response from you. Albeit it was
not exactly what
I wanted to hear.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Raibeck [SMTP:storman AT US.IBM DOT COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 3:59 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse
> trap.
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>