> On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 06:30:59PM +0100, Robert Waldner wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:18:31 +0100, Dariush Pietrzak writes:
> > >> which are useful unless you have to manage lots of those boxes,
> >
> > >I wouldn't know.
> > >but isn't that what OpenView is for? and is unbeatable in that field?
> >
> > I consider BrokenView to be in the field of BigBuckMoneyBurn-ware ...
>
> Indeed. I've yet to meet anyone that has used it and -liked- it.
>
> The most common reason to run OV is "we installed some vendor hardware
> and they only let us manage it with OV".
This now explains to me why the networking team at my old company, having
had the UNIX, TCP/IP admin side install openview for them at vast expense.
Then still relied on us to troubleshoot whenever there were problems....
We used errrr ping, traceroute, tcpdump etc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
