RE: ITM

Many products are moving to Frameworks,
but the Frameworks themselves have evolved. Most new Framework technologies
are transparent and labeled "Web Services". Think about it -
a common communication method (HTTP) using standard data formats (XML),
the architecture is much more scalable and flatter. There are also more
people who understand the uses of Web Services in an enterprise, so skills
will eventually be easier to find and less specialized.

TMTP communications are based on Web
Services, XML data transfer and communications of HTTP/HTTPS. This is what
future management frameworks will look like. It can integrate with the
FW at the endpoint level - but does not have to.

 Is it different - definitely.
Is it a slow and painful process to ensure some level of compatibility
with existing customers - defintely.

Frankly - building a tool to monitor
Windows is easy a good VBS or PERL coder can do it in a few days and have
some good functionality. Most IBM/Tivoli people will tell you that if all
want to do is monitor Windows servers - Tivoli is not the solution for
you. Building a tool to monitor 4 different versions of AIX, 3 versions
of Solaris, 4 different distributions of Linux, integrate over 35 other
"point" tools and maintain a level of security and organization
is not as easy. That being said - the Tivoli products have their problems
and I want them fixed just as much as everyone else does.

Jason Shamroski




Jason Shamroski

<gunnar.svanberg-tQ0j8nVVjSY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5Z02kCBrIhxGw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 01/31/2005 09:55 AM Please respond to tme10

To:        <tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>         cc:                 Subject:        RE: [tme10] ITM

Exactely! The "point"
in point solution at this site stands for 96+% (Windows) of the installed
base. So it's a big point!
Tell me something, if Framework
was such a good idea how come the products I'm evaluating right now (TWS
and ITMTP)
never have and propably never
will run under Tivoli Framework? And as a "consequence" both
perform very well and are excellent positioned.
 
Infact I haven't seen one single
product (apart from ITM) move to FW since I started in 1998, have you?
When I started with Tivoli products they where considered "good enough".
I'm not so sure that is the case right now.
 
To me it boils down to a focal
point of alarm handling. Frameworks or point solution does'nt really matter
as long as the stability and quality is in the right place.
Which clearly isn't the case with
ITM today.
 
Time will tell if MOM 200? will
replace ITM or not.
It sure will be an interesting
journey.
 
/Gus

---

From: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of eric_c_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: den 31 januari 2005 15:33
To: tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tme10] ITM


Okay, I was gonna' let this ITM berating pass and die...but c'mon...  Both
IBM and Microsoft are the respective kings of patches, LA fixes, and major
product course corrections. 

As for the posting about MOM...  MOM is a fantastic product...for
monitoring Windows infrastructures.  In fact, I believe that it just
won a best of breed award.  But the reality is that MOM is a Windows
platform product.  It is a platform point solution that does it's
tasks extraordinarily well with minimal effort (comparatively speaking).
 There are and will be more integration for the product to do other
things across platforms, but the following is unrealistic:

"I really think all Enterprises will move
to MOM 2005 in 1.5-2 years."

Tivoli is a framework.  Unicenter is a framework.  There are
and will be more frameworks.  We live the life of implementers of
frameworks.  We do things with frameworks that would be insane to
attempt with a point solution.  However, some point solutions do things
that would be ridiculous to do with a framework.  C'est la vie...

The technical impracticalities of requested/required monitoring and management
solutions are such only as the respective tools force them to be.  So
when it comes to the solutions that we must implement using our designated
tools...there's effort, time, training...etc. 

But in our area of technology...the facts, although interesting...are irrelevant.


Thanks,


Eric C. Jones
Enterprise Systems Management
SSMT Tivoli Engineer, JP Morgan Chase
614.213.6537
eric_c_jones-n1yi7zhirBtBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 


Eric C Jones

jason_shamroski@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent by: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 01/31/2005 08:39 AM Please respond to tme10

To:        tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5akxNUMemJ2pw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx        cc:                Subject:        Re: [tme10] ITM

I can't tell what the point of this statement is? 

IBM manages the listserv and doesn't contribute much at all and they make
a ton of money from us all. 

BTW - How many companies sell services or products to shore shortcomings
in Microsoft products? 

Jason Shamroski
JP Morgan Chase




Jason Shamroski

Robert_Traill@xxxxxxx Sent by: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 01/29/2005 08:08 AM Please respond to tme10

To:        tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx       cc:               Subject:        Re: [tme10] ITM

Also, ITM is another reason why customers are turning to external
consultants/experts to code ResourceModels to get back functionality present
in DM.   Notice that 1 or 2 companies are dominating this list group.
   I
do recognize that they are providing much valued input freely, but they
are
also gaining much recognition.


Rob


From: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 01/28/2005 08:06:34 PM
Subject: [tme10] ITM

Hi list,

is it possible to distribute an custom configurationfile together with
a
Ressource Model Profile , like the Distribution Action in DM3.7.


--
10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
<<http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail>>
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++


Rob Traill,  Tivoli Specialist
Enterprise Systems Operations
ph:   (905) 795-5400 ext 7315
fax:  (905) 795-5404
email:  robert_traill-v7N2k3TrpGc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
email (rim):  rtraill-ZyKR0qJ3nKKIC6bbV+xI3kh/o/VBkw4H@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any
reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission
in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material
in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.