> Hey Andrew, how about we all put our request in
> this forum and you consolidate them to your
> management? I think my voice has a bit more of
> chance to be heard via this path then making a
> request to my IBM Partner account rep.

Actually the opposite is true. The fact is, while TSM development may have
some input into what goes into the product, ultimately it is IBM/Tivoli
marketing that has the biggest influence over what will go into future
releases. And since the marketing group sees the requirements that come in
through official channels, they are more likely to see your requirement if
you go the official route.

Assuming that your IBM Partner account rep can open a requirement for you,
that is the way you should request new features, changes, and
enhancements. When you open a requirement through the official channels
(ADSM-L is NOT an official channel), then you can be sure that the
requirement is evaluated by marketing (and development), and you will
receve a response. An alternative to this is to open the requirement via
SHARE, where new requirements are discussed with IBM, and responses to
requirements from the previous SHARE are given... at least I think that is
how it works, I have not been to SHARE for several years.

With that said, do not take this to mean that your suggestions on ADSM-L
fall on deaf ears. If an idea on this forum comes up that we thing is a
good, we will bring the idea forward internally. But that is not a
replacement for the formal method of opening a requirement, where it will
get more attention.

Regards,

Andy

Andy Raibeck
IBM Software Group
Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development
Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS
Internet e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com

The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
The command line is your friend.
"Good enough" is the enemy of excellence.




mrkirra2001 <mrkirra2001 AT hotmail DOT com>
Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
03/01/2002 19:17
Please respond to mrkirra2001


        To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
        cc:
        Subject:        Re: Exclude SYSTEM_OBJECT redux



Hey Andrew, how about we all put our request in this forum and you
consolidate them to your management?
I think my voice has a bit more of chance to be heard via this path then
making a request to my IBM Partner account rep.

So I vote we have the option to NOT backup SYSTEMOBJECTS (the *.exe's,
*.dll's, etc...) on the W2K platform.

Thanks

/gjs