ADSM-L

Re: *Real* admin interface (Was: q vol f=g ??!?)

2003-08-22 12:47:41
Subject: Re: *Real* admin interface (Was: q vol f=g ??!?)
From: "Kamp, Bruce" <bkamp AT MHS DOT NET>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:47:21 -0400
What might be another alternative is an MMC (Microsoft Management
Console)....

Bruce Kamp

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Sims
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Sent: 8/22/2003 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: *Real* admin interface (Was: q vol f=g ??!?)

>this "the old admin GUI is much better than the Web interface"
subject=20
>pops up now and then.
>The poster of the first message always dreams of a Windows or Java GUI
>that supports the latest TSM server (btw I'm dreaming too).
>A few minutes later the list gets drowned by "me too" messages.
>
>I think there was/is a SHARE requirement for a *real* admin interface
>(can you filter your tape volumes with the web interface?).
>I don't understand why Tivoli isn't listening to their customers.
>Tivoli should start a survey on how many customers would like to have
>such an animal and on what platform. Based on this results it should be
>easy to provide a GUI for the platform users want.
>
>So please Tivoli, LISTEN!

Thomas - I share your frustration.  How to get results may require
another
         approach...
Product such as TSM are Big Bucks, Enterprise products.  As such, they
are
marketed to the level of people in the organization who can authorize
such
expenditures - customer company executives.  Executives respond to
Enterprise
issues: competitiveness, saving lots of money, nice reports, trimming
staff.
Issues that affect us lowly technicians way down in the company engine
room,
where we shovel coal into the company boilers, don't get any exposure or
attention.  To get such attention, those issues have to get up to a
higher
management level where those managers, whom IBM will respond to, will
feed
the issues to the IBM rep and thus get attention.  You have to expend
efforts
to make a written case, understandable to higher-ups, that the current
product situation is impairing administration and costing the company
lost
productivity, etc.

SHARE is certainly an avenue; but as they say, "Money talks."

  Richard Sims, BU