Bill - thanks - I am following up on that MSM stuff. I have been out of the
OS/390 Netview game since the v1.3 ESP and beta.
Now, another note. What prompted me to post this "rant" was the strange
sense of deja vu I experience whenever I talk to someone about NetView. I
feel like everyone involved has exactly the same opinion - things could
obviously be improved and should have been long ago. What I am missing is
why? We are talking about software engineering - evalutate requirements,
make design requirements, code and test, implement. Which of these phases is
getting bogged down? Why are people with development responsibilities not
given the time/resources to make these enhancements for (literally) 10
years?
I have recieved a number of private emails from folks and every single
person has said the same thing. They have said the word AMEN. Look, I am a
person who believes that systems management is the single largest initiative
a company can take to improve their overall quality. I am not here to be
"the squeaky wheel". I am here to make sure that what Tivoli hears from "the
outside" is loud and clear and that features are designed and implemented
that mesh with the organizations and technologies required to support
systems management. Its very difficult to "sell" NetView to my internal
organizations. There are other packages with far more polish and far less
usability. The do little to help the environment, but since the user
interfaces are so much more "contemporary" they are widely accepted and
NetView functionality is often forced to the back burner with some of these
management toys you can download.
Tivoli needs to give NetView development teams all the resources they need
to catch up on 10 years of missed opportunities. In every aspect of Netview
functionality improvements can be easily identified. There is no doubt that
many of the functions could be improved simply by implementing the plethora
of suggestions made here or by analyzing "the gripe line" here in this
forum. I know if I were James/Leslie my head would be spinning answering the
same silly question with a convoluted work-around for the 8th year in a row.
I don't know how you guys do it.
But - I'm not a NetView basher. This is a great product. It needs overhaul
like all products that are 10 years old. It needs user interfaces that are
complete with functionality commensurate with what the market has to offer
now NOT what NetView had to offer 5 years ago. Unfortunately, the user
interface is OFTEN what sells a product. (Anyone ever heard of that GUI
thing, Windows? I hear that might catch on>) We all know that Microsoft
Windows (any flavor) sets the standard for user interfaces but I think we
would all agree that there are probably far better operating systems out
there. Still, some 80% of machines in the world are running Windows. The
same is true here. The product that sells well is probably the one that
Looks the slickest and has the best marketing campaign. The best technology
often loses out (remember OS/2?). I'm not saying to put a fork in NetView -
but I am saying the features that sold the product in the past are
irrelevant because the vast majority of purchase decisions are being made by
people with very little technical expertise (networking explosion in the
last few years has opened the doors for lots of manager-wannabes). Features
were critical before, when we had no network management systems. Now, with
many network management systems available, the interface becomes a critical
selling point and frankly, the user interface integration in NetView is not
up to par. The obvious holes make it seem "amateurish" and the folks around
me keep asking questions like "how come I can not move the control desk
window from the main GUI very easily - that like desk icon just disappears
whenever I grab it with the mouse..." (and oh please don't get me started on
a heterogenous client discussion...)
They say that more than 80% of people will never complain about un-met
service comittments. Just because only a few of us offer an opinion doesn't
mean many of us aren't thinking exactly the same thing.
- Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nv-l@tkg.com [mailto:owner-nv-l@tkg.com]On Behalf Of Bill
Evans
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 4:19 PM
To: IBM NetView Discussion
Subject: Re: [NV-L] Rants on Integration (read Filter events by
interface thread also)
Wow and Amen. That was a major flame. Two points only with no intent to
fan the flame.
1. There is a new - last couple years - extension to the Multi-System
Manager and NetView/390 which allows AIX and Solaris users to forward
traps via TCPIP and have them converted to SNA/MS alerts at the 390 end.
(Rest In Peace AIX Service Point; I was the designer for that one.)
The MSM code makes much more sense and is much easier to implement since
it doesn't need the SNA stack at the Unix end. Progress is being made.
It took a decade to do it right but most of the wait was for a reliable
TCP/IP for OS/390.
2. I didn't intend to set anyone off with an old man's explanation of
why he's not ready to keep up with EVERY new fashion. At the same time
your "rant" is nothing new to the developers. They're aware 'cause some
of us have been singing that chorus for years. If you look at the
recent activity on the NetView/390 and GEM console interfaces you'll see
some of the progress being made in providing a common Java based GUI.
The common Web Client Java for Unix and NT is another advance. Slow
progress but progress. I think I'm seeing some organizational progress
as well; I think I see management regaining some control of the process
they apparently lost about 1996 but it's hard to read those tea leaves
from the outside.
Scott Barr wrote:
> I was going to post this as a reply but thought a new topic is in order.
> (James/Leslie and all other who support this forum should be aware of
major
> flame warning here).
--
Bill Evans -- Consultant in Enterprise Systems Management
reply-to: wvevans@prodigy.net (or Bill_Evans@sra.com)
Phone: 919-696-7513
Send short text messages to 9196967513@messaging.sprintpcs.com
_________________________________________________________________________
|