At the Planet Tivoli
conference last fall, for the first time I
heard IBM folks
publically discuss how the Framework is
a limiting factor to
the kinds of things they want to do. You
might try to find
some of the conference presentations to
gain some insight
into where Tivoli is going.
The operative word
seems to be: SOA
Loren
Cain
Digicon
From:
owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
eric_c_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:02
AM
To: tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [tme10]
ITM
Tu chez... but I gotta
say...the idea of IBM/Tivoli products being better outside of the framework
makes ya' think and is kinda morbidly funny...
Thanks,
Eric C.
Jones
Enterprise Systems Management
SSMT
Tivoli
Engineer, JP Morgan
Chase
614.213.6537
eric_c_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx
Eric C
Jones
|
|
<gunnar.svanberg@xxxxxx>
Sent by:
owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
01/31/2005 09:55
AM
Please respond to
tme10 |
To: <tme10@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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
eric_c_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: den 31 januari 2005
15:33
To: tme10@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@xxxxxxxxxxx
Eric C
Jones
|
|
jason_shamroski@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by:
owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
01/31/2005 08:39
AM
Please respond to
tme10 |
To: tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
01/29/2005 08:08
AM
Please respond to
tme10 |
To: tme10@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@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@xxxxxxx
email (rim):
rtraill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
