RE: [nv-l] Enhancement Requests

2004-08-03 10:49:19
Subject: RE: [nv-l] Enhancement Requests
From: "Allison, Jason (JALLISON)" <JALLISON AT arinc DOT com>
To: "'nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com'" <nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:37:25 -0400
Well put.  I dont agree with all of it, but most of it.  Matter of fact, I am saving the email to show my customers (internal) when they report problems with our Netview product.

Jason Allison
Principal Engineer
ARINC Incorporated

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com [mailto:owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com] On Behalf Of Barr, Scott
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 10:22 AM
To: nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com
Subject: [nv-l] Enhancement Requests

As has been noted in this forum many times, the only valid way to request modifications and enhancements to the NetView product is via the Enhancement request through your IBM/Tivoli representative.
I just wanted to let everyone know, so you may respond to your representative accordingly, that my enhancement request asking for the ability to use Locations as scoping mechanisms is under review. This request asked that the scoping rules for user accounts in the web client allow the use of a location container instead of just a subnet.
This enhancement request was placed on February 28th 2003. By my calculations, that is nearly 18 months ago.
This underscores a point that many of us on the mailing list have been trying to make regarding the lag time to deployment of even the simplest of additional features to NetView. If it takes 18 months to get a fairly simple change (from a feature point of view) to the "review" stage, then how long will it take for support for SNMPv3? or Community String Indexing. By the time this enhancement is complete, I will probably have a matured work around in place even if it means tons of manual work or programming/scripting to accomplish. To date, I have never found a single individual who has submitted an enhancement request who can say that their enhancement is in the product today. Maybe I'm wrong.
Look, we all understand that IBM generally gives software away at very reasonable prices and earns their revenues based on service contracts. Okay fine. It appears to me that the focus is placed on service and support to the detriment of development and enhancements. I am continuously being asked "Why doesn't NetView do this.....?" and I have to continually respond with, well "I've heard that is coming", or "Don't hold your breath" You want more examples? How about automation processing being single threaded? Why hasn't someone dealt with this already? How about Java performance issues with the web client and with the java based security console (which runs so slowly it makes my eyes bleed)? How about the fact that mib loaders under the X-windows interface (which is netmon and snmpCollect work off of) will not always load mibs that the mib loader provided for the web client will load? How about SERVMON and the fact that on the Unix platforms it has been castrated of necessary function? (As a side note, TEC is in about the same shape as I now fully realize that console updates are single threaded and trap floods pretty much wipe out TEC even though I have successfully handled the events in NetView).
Look, the list goes on and on. Someone has to communicate to the highest levels of the development organization that there is pressure to find different solutions than NetView when we can't demonstrate a superior product or demonstrate a committment to the technologies / features we are being asked to deploy. I am a person who participates in early support programs, I try and get in on beta tests, I try and be a vocal leader of the NetView user community (thus my participation in the Tivoli NetView global users group). I am vocal, I am well-trained, I am prepared and I participate. I am in many regards the best kind of customer IBM can have (some will snicker at that comment, but thats the way I view it). And if I can't get enhancements deployed, after 18 months, with no feedback or follow up, how can the "average" netview administrator. How can IBM expect to earn, or keep, a best of breed tag on this software? Unrealistic expectation I say.
I'm sorry, this is not meant to be a rant. I typed over a WHOLE bunch of stuff I wanted to say to try and keep this is professional as possible, but frankly, I'm at wit's end with the development cycle. I encourage others to respond to this thread with enhancements they know are submitted or glaring architectural/design issues that should have been dealt with long ago.
Thanks, and again, sorry for the rant.