Jane Curry wrote:
> James et al,
> I can only repeat what Scott said. I also participated in the ITSA beta
> - no-one offered me the opportunity to participate in the NV 7.1.4 beta
> - whoever told you that, I can only suggest they had their wires crossed
> somewhere.
>
> I, personally, had no expectation of service icons at the interface
> level until I read the new, gold (cos I wasn't invited to join the beta)
> Admin Guide 7.1.4 for Unix. I cannot see any other way to interpret the
> lines I quoted earlier from this manual.
>
> My second disappointment, like Scott, is that there is obviously a move
> to some interesting new functionality to do with servmon, itmquery and
> TEC integration, but what is shipped looks half developed and only a
> quarter documented - hence my asking questions on the forum - I was
> rather hoping some NV7.1.4 beta customers may have asked these questions
> earlier and got some answers!
>
> Lets stop winging about what may or may not be there. Sounds like a
> classic case for someone to write a quick but accurate Tivoli Field
> Guide, explaining what we really have got and how it works. I would be
> very happy to collaborate on this with someone from inside development
> if they can provide the factual / architectual info.
>
> Cheers,
> Jane
>
> James Shanks wrote:
>
> >
> > Jane, and Scott,
> >
> > Help me out here, folks. I don't want to upset anyone nor rub salt
> > into a wound, but I am very puzzled.
> >
> >
> > Both of you, Jane and Scott, have expressed extreme disappointment
> > over what was provided as new function in NetView 7.1.4.
> >
> > I'm sorry about that. I'll grant you that the new function is not
> > much. But I'm mystified as to why you thought there would be so much
> > more. This is just another NetView point release. Most of what got
> > in there was to support new events going to TEC. Now that NetView is
> > a component of TEC, that is it's primary job, so far as Tivoli upper
> > management is concerned. I think that NetView development may have
> > wished to provide more, but they have to negotiate for every extra day
> > to code something new that isn't mandated by a TEC requirement.
> >
> > So I've asked the question internally why you were both not included
> > in the 7.1.4 beta, so that two of our most valuable and vocal users
> > could have previewed the function, and provided vital feedback to
> > development. I was stunned to be told that both of you were offered
> > the opportunity to participate and that both of you turned it down!
> >
> > Is this true? Can you share with us why?
> >
> > That would have been the ideal method for you to avoided all this
> > surprise and disappointment. And your comments, likes and dislikes,
> > would have gone all the way up the chain beyond NetView development
> > and TEC development to the folks who control the entire Tivoli
> > marketing strategy. You could have obtained a commitment from
> > development as to when your full needs would be met.
> >
> > Why didn't you grab it?
> >
> >
> >
> > James Shanks
> > Level 3 Support for Tivoli NetView for UNIX and Windows
> > Tivoli Software / IBM Software Group
>
> --
> Tivoli Certified Consultant & Instructor
> Skills 1st Limited, 2 Cedar Chase, Taplow, Bucks, SL6 0EU, UK
> Tel: +44 (0)1628 782565
> Copyright (c) 2003 Jane Curry <jane.curry@skills-1st.co.uk>. All rights
> reserved.
My 2 cents.
One reason we wait so long for new NV release, is so that IBM folks can get
the
bugs fixed and "new" features functioning correctly with accurate
documentation, NOT
to get the product a year later and then write the manual on how it really
works.
In the case of SERVMON the interface service ICON should be there, not to
mention the
poor doc on this new feature; period. It's that simple.
IBM should fix the problem and document it correctly. That's what we are
paying
for.
Jeff Fitzwater
|