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