Actually you've probably seen Pete's response by now... it's a lot better than
mine! (I was actually unaware of these new test flags, but apparently your
request was something we already are looking at.)
Take it easy,
Andy
Andy Raibeck
IBM Storage Systems Division
ADSM Client Development
e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com
ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU on 08/26/98 01:55:24 PM
Please respond to ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse trap.
Thanks Andy -
I guess my frustrations are based more on the fact that I
see more responsiveness from the listserver than I do
From the Local IBM office. I honestly believe that those requests that
you receive are acted upon and the submitter receives a response.
My concern is with the folks at the local IBM site who never forward
the requests. I personally would like to by-pass them and have
everything go through another channel. when we purchased ADSM we
submitted
a handful of enhancements and never heard another word.
Anyway -
I have some hope here. At least I got a response from you. Albeit it was
not exactly what
I wanted to hear.
Take Care -
CR
________________________
Cris Robinson
Senior Technical Analyst
Desktop Services Technical Support
Liberty Mutual Insurance
603.431.8400.54837
cris.robinson AT libertymutual DOT com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Raibeck [SMTP:storman AT US.IBM DOT COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 3:59 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse
> trap.
>
> I'm sorry that you feel this way, but in reality it is through the
> formal
> requirement process that it does *not* fall into oblivion. When a
> requirement
> comes in from your branch office, we *have* to respond to you on it.
> When a
> requirement is submitted via ADSM-L, it may not even be seen (by the
> right ADSM
> developers).
>
> When we do hear requirements like this on ADSM-L, we often make note
> of them
> for future use. The difference is that we won't necessarily get back
> to you
> with a response, unlike the formal process which *requires* a
> response.
>
> I apologize if my response came/comes across as cold or uncaring, but
> if you
> look at my track record for participation on this forum (as well as
> for other
> ADSM developers), I think you'll see that we really do care about our
> customers. And don't forget, I was an ADSM customer myself for over 2
> years,
> and I haven't forgotten that. But I also have to be careful (for
> reasons mostly
> legal) that I don't set an expectation that we *will* (or won't)
> change this,
> nor do I want to set the expectation that ADSM-L is how requirements
> should be
> submitted to IBM.
>
> That said, consider your suggestion noted (as it was originally). I
> can't
> promise if it will be delivered or when, but it'll be considered. In
> the mean
> time, if you want to be sure it is entered into our formal
> requirements
> database (that we do look at and respond to), you can do as I
> originally
> recommended.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Andy
>
> Andy Raibeck
> IBM Storage Systems Division
> ADSM Client Development
> e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com
>
>
>
> ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU on 08/26/98 12:02:41 PM
> Please respond to ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> cc:
> Subject: Re: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse trap.
>
>
> Where it will fall into the endless oblivion of IBM.
>
> Nevermind.
>
>
> ________________________
> Cris Robinson
> Senior Technical Analyst
> Desktop Services Technical Support
> Liberty Mutual Insurance
> 603.431.8400.54837
> cris.robinson AT libertymutual DOT com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Raibeck [SMTP:storman AT US.IBM DOT COM]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 2:23 PM
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: Re: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse
> > trap.
> >
> > This request should be submitted as a requirement via your local IBM
> > branch.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > Andy Raibeck
> > IBM Storage Systems Division
> > ADSM Client Development
> > e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com
> >
> >
> >
> > ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU on 08/26/98 11:08:02 AM
> > Please respond to ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > cc:
> > Subject: New Win32 v3 ptf5-refresh client..A better mouse trap.
> >
> >
> > Well, I just finished installing the refreshed client code for
> version
> > 3
> > ptf5
> > and I was glad to see that they changed the GUI so that an end user
> is
> > "less" likely to
> > backup a network drive.
> >
> > Good!
> > Now lets make it just a bit better.
> > What do you say we remove it as a default of any kind, but still
> make
> > it
> > an option that
> > can be selected for those crazy enough to backup a mapped drive.
> > Anyone?
> > Anyone?
> >
> > Anyway. I was testing away when I thought ... Wouldn't it be better
> if
> > it was a selectable
> > menu option similar to the option:
> >
> > View
> > ----> Display active/inactive files
> >
> > Lets have:
> >
> > View
> > -----> Network drives
> >
> > Of course the default would be NO, but for everyone's amusement it
> > would
> > still be there.
> >
> > Wouldn't that be cool?
> >
> > Take Care -
> > CR
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________
> > Cris Robinson
> > Senior Technical Analyst
> > Desktop Services Technical Support
> > Liberty Mutual Insurance
> > 603.431.8400.54837
> > cris.robinson AT libertymutual DOT com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
|
