From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Remco Post > So you're sugesting that while we are willing to pay as much for backing > up a Mac as for a PC, IBM doesn't have to put as much effort in building > a decent TSM client.
No, what I'm saying is that, given a finite set of resources, IBM/Tivoli is going to put the vast majority of them into supporting/improving the platforms that generate the most money. You'll notice how many OS platforms once had ADSM/TSM clients, but no longer do. (There are a lot of them.) > Over here, we do backup workstations to protect their users data. If > tivoli was unwilling to support Mac, they wouldn't have sold the client > at all. Either do thing good, or don't do them at all. I can inmagine > developpers have a problem supporting Mac since it's quite different > from Unix, so they need more time to do the same thing as they do on > Unix. Windows programming is known to be more complicated, so will > probably get some more resources. The normal pattern of data flow within business infrastructures in America is for workstation users to access data held in a server, edit that data, and save it back to the server. The servers act as centralized depositories of data. This minimizes the number of machines that require backups. > And like all buisnesses IBM is not happy with negative publicity. So > it's in their intrest to build a decent client, or stop selling it. > Having said that. My mac is a lot happier with 5.1.5 on MacOS X than it > was with 5.1.0. Granted. Were I making decisions at Tivoli, I would withdraw the Mac client until it worked in a manner reasonably identical to the way Windows and UNIX clients work. You can bet that, if Tivoli told UNIX users the TSM scheduler won't work unless a root-level user was logged on, there'd be hell to pay. -- Mark Stapleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Certified TSM consultant Certified AIX system engineer MCSE
