I heard in my last TSM user meet, (last june) that Tivoli was coming out with a newer ISC Lite version, just for TSM. Does anyone knop when this is going to see the light of the day?
Rajesh > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Prather, Wanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: TSM 5.3 web gui > Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 14:25:41 -0500 > > > 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 > -- _______________________________________________ Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number. -Lycos Yellow Pages http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
