I agree - there are SOME things that were designed really well in the AC. I've been VERY impressed that it finally is much easier for newbies to create management classes. The library creation tool is also excellent, and (with the exception of one mis-labelled option) the DRM and checkin wizards are great for new users. When I'm working with new admins who aren't used to the old GUI, they don't seem to have any trouble or complaints with the AC conceptually, just with the bugs (like the java command line frequently doesn't work, and the screen jumps out of position too often).
On the other hand, putting a GOOD DESIGN on top of a BAD STRUCTURE was a BAD PLAN. Did any of those "I-WANT" statements specify "I WANT A TSM FRONT END THAT REQUIRES WEBSPHERE AND A BIGGER HOST THAN I CURRENTLY NEED TO RUN MY TSM SERVER?" I Doooooo't think so! It's like trying to stuff a hippo into a perambulator. It's like chartering a 60-seat chauferred bus to buy eggs at the 7-11. It's like donning a full moon-walk life-support suit to clean the litter box. It's like..well, better stop. And WHERE did this notion of "one consolidated front end" come from? Who does it help? In any site with more than 1 staff person, the division of labor is that the Storage person uses all the storage products, not just the Tivoli products; the Security person uses all the security products, not just the Tivoli security products, etc. It makes sense to drive all the Tivoli STORAGE products from one (non-websphere) interface, but not "everything". On top of that, the product was clearly released before it was fully cooked (telling new TSM users to use the command line for DRM was absurd), and the original decision to tell people there would NOT be a transition tool was ill-considered, arrogant, and as might be expected, disastrous. As are the continuing problems with packaging, installation, and documentation. The installation problems and the lack of a useful command-line capability seem to be what frustrate experienced TSM admins the most, not the AC design. In fact, I spoke at one point with someone who had participated in a customer workshop to preview the ISC design. He said "We all really liked the design. But they DIDN"T TELL US it was going to be so topheavy and so slow and require Websphere". Another case of how to get bad results from surveys... but that's a different soapbox. At any rate, I don't think the Admin Center itself is the problem. It's what lurks beneath... My opinion and nobody else's.. Wanda -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Allen S. Rout Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:21 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: TSM 5.3 web gui >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:28:06 -0500, Richard Mochnaczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I had some problems with the setup of the Admin Console. I placed a > call with IBM, [...] The ranting about the ISC was legion in Oxford, and clearly a source of frustration for the IBMers there; there were many questions or "I-want" type statements which were answered with "We're doing that in the Admin Console". It's clear that they've placed a lot of effort and thought into the AC design. I'm starting to think that we, TSM admins, are just too varied a bunch to have our needs met within the constraints of one such system and the ideology that must be imposed with it. Maybe IBM can just ditch the GUI idea entirely, and leave the market to the 3rd party tools. Or maybe they can ditch the idea that the GUI is 'full featured', and deploy something intended to coddle folks who are never going to make the effort, and omit the hard bits. I'm in sympathy with the desire to web-ify many administrative aspects of many IBM tools under a unified umbrella. But the One Ring to Rule Them All attitude has well-documented failure modes, and nobody wants to be Sauron at the end. It gets worse when the One Ring is as (pardon me) shaky and unmaintainable as Websphere. We've had deep, deep _DEEP_ problems with that product. A low point was when a level 2 tech in all seriousness told us he wasn't sure the product supported HTTP. No, really. I can't make that up. Our tech replied that maybe they should change the product name to just "Sphere". I've been through the AIX install of the ISC and AC on a disposable LPAR several times now; even with a fresh clean box and support on the line, we've not been able to get a working console up, which I find more amusing than irritating, any more. - Allen S. Rout
