I heard in my last TSM user meet, (last june) that Tivoli was coming out with a
newer ISC Lite version, just for TSM. Does anyone knop when this is going to
see the light of the day?
Rajesh
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Prather, Wanda" <Wanda.Prather AT JHUAPL DOT EDU>
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: TSM 5.3 web gui
> Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 14:25:41 -0500
>
>
> 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
>
--
_______________________________________________
Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
|
