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". As an example of its brokenness, when I had to run it, I also had to use 'mon' to ensure that OV was actually still running: periodically one part of OV would core dump and take down the rest of it. The irony of using a couple thousand lines of GPL'd Perl to monitor hundreds of thousands of lines of expensive crapware was amusing, though. Then there was the day that OpenView refused to honor its own license, which meant I had to call our evil VAR (HP refused to help, because we got it as a VAR package) and have -them- call HP... 12 hours later HP gave us a new license that OV didn't choke on. Too bad the hardware that OV was supposed to be controlling was offline for 12 hours. > If you´re (for whatever reason) already forced to use expensive (and > much too often crappy) cisco-gear, I´d guess you don´t want to strangle > yourself further with more&more not-open-source-software. OpenView is what made me as rabid 'give me source or keep it off my network' as I am. (And, thanks to the wonders of proprietary software's inferiority, it even convinced management of the same thing.... now -they- ask about source and standards compliance when talking to sales wonks, and usually even specifically ask "will this work with Linux?")
