Well, I'm going to straddle the fence here.

Your argument that the death of the GUI is not "life threatening" could just
as easily be adapted to say "Why spend money on developing the web
interface?  The command line works OK."
Usability does count for something.

It really is IMPOSSIBLE to manage a LARGE tape library (400+ volumes) on a
daily basis with the web interface.  The people who designed it clearly
never had to use it in a real life tape management environment.  (That isn't
too surprising, really.  They probably didn't have one to work with.  Things
that appear to work fine in a small test environment sometimes just don't
scale up well to real production systems -- Size does matter.)

I don't think I have seen that many complaints that the Windows GUI isn't
being enhanced, mostly complaints that it is being taken away.  (Given that
the web interface lacks function and is clumsy and slow, that's a big DUH.)
And there has been no response from Tivoli that gives people (including me)
any confidence that  they understand what is WRONG with the web interface or
that it is going to get any better, which which is one reason I think you
see more people starting to demand the return of the WIndows GUI.

I think the person who said earlier that the death of the windows GUI was
"premature" got it right.  The web interface has potential and the lovely
attribute of being runnable anywhere, without installing software.  I'm
willing to wait for it to be developed, but on the other hand, I can't give
up my tools that I need to manage NOW.

I would argue for MAINTAINING the GUI for Windows in the TSM distribution
packages and supporting it IN ITS CURRENT FORM WITHOUT ENHANCEMENTS until
the web interface is fully there (including the SORT and FILTER and EXPORT
capabilities that are desperately needed.)  We shouldn't have to go back and
scrounge old versions of the clients to keep the tools we need that are
already in there.

I can't see any justification for REGRESSING our TSM administration
capabilities, or how it is conducive to Tivoli's ability to sell the product
when people find out they have to write and maintain their own scripts to
get practical tape volume information in the forms you need it.   Spend
development money making the web interface work (for REAL environments).
But don't push us backwards.

Wanda



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly Lipp [SMTP:lipp AT STORSOL DOT COM]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 1:03 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: Windows Admin GUI
>
> The problem with the GUI is that it exists on many platforms written using
> many different tools.  For instance, on Windows the tool was Visual Basic,
> while on UNIX it was some Motif tool.  That's the reason there has been no
> new functionality added to that interface in a long time.  Way too many
> developers required to keep all the platforms in functional sync.  Can you
> imagine if they had kept the Windows GUI up to date and let the UNIX GUI
> go?
> We would have been screaming about that.
>
> I'm in concurrence with the sentiment about the Web interface: completely
> functional but not particularly usable.  Some of that is due to the tool
> chosen.  Hey, bookmarks would make the whole thing lots better out the
> gate!
> Can't do bookmarks with the product written in Cold Fusion.  That tool
> makes
> it easy to write the interface, but doesn't allow some of the browser
> features we all know and love.
>
> I honestly believe this is a bottom line issue: the GUI does not
> contribute
> to the bottom line.  It contributes to user satisfaction but costs a lot
> in
> the process.  Would you all rather dedicate engineering resources to this,
> or to the base product?  Would we rather have more functionality in the
> server and backup archive client code, or in the GUI?  These are the
> trade-offs inherent within engineering organizations with limited
> resources.
>
> Is the death of the GUI life threatening?  No.  I would even suggest
> taking
> the resources that might be applied to the GUI and using them in testing.
> Don't even use them in new development.  Just test the product better.
> Eliminate more of the bugs that we get to find.  That, to me, is a better
> use of resources.
>
> Kelly J. Lipp
> Storage Solutions Specialists, Inc.
> PO Box 51313
> Colorado Springs CO 80919
> (719)531-5926
> Fax: (719)260-5991
> www.storsol.com
> lipp AT storsol DOT com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU]On Behalf Of
> Richard Sims
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 10:28 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Windows Admin GUI
>
>
> >Let's argue to get the Web interface to work better
>
> Worth a try.
>
> >That is the future, whether we like it or not.
>
> Well, it doesn't *have* to be.  It saves developers work, but at the
> obvious expense of performance and customer satisfaction.  The customer's
> money supports development, and should specify the nature of the product
> that one pays for, which has to meet business needs.  Standard statement
> of "tail should not wag dog".  I believe we're about a year and a half
> into waiting for a satisfactory web interface - and probably time for
> development to admit that it's not a realistic objective anymore.
>    Richard Sims, BU