Doug,
I actually reported ISS03048461 ( on 1/3/2007 ):
"
.... a problem with the release pdf (included in the product download
doc set) as being incomplete. It was something like 28 pages in the
docs download. However, if you find that pdf else were on BMC's
website it was 98 pages long.
"
The PDF that is part of the software downloads was missing 70
(seventy) pages of information in the Release-Notes-701.pdf. That is
200%+ more content than the original document was as it was originally
created!
This is what I was told about this condition:
"
Here is the explanation for the discrepancy in pages:
The ESD/download release notes are a previous (and shorter) version of
the release notes. The Remedy writers added content to the release
notes on the Support Documentation pages, while the ESD release notes
weren't changed.
The latest release notes are on the Support Documentation pages &
going forward, the Remedy writers will no longer add content to
release notes on the Support Documentation pages that aren't included
in the download file. Instead they'll follow the process that the rest
of BMC writers use , to issue technical bulletins with the additional
information. The changes are a result of removing the previous
database site and how documentation was delivered to the new database
site. I hope this is sufficient explanation for you.
Thank you,
<STRIPED NAME>
Customer Care
BMC Web Support
1-800-537-1813
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
And my ticket was then closed.
No resolution was provided. BMC support provided a statement that
boils down to "we don't care that our posted docs are inconsistent and
that the original docs are clearly lacking important information."
They did not even offer to remove the "broken/poor" documentation when
it was pointed out to them that it was missing 200%+ of material.
Our support money appears to not be providing much more than a place
to call/write and complain about the problems that BMC has. I can not
remember the last time Tech Support actually helped to debug/diagnose
and FIX a problem that I reported.
<enter_support_mantra>
<repeat_until_customer_gives_up>
Send us your logs.....
Send us your logs.....
Send us your logs.....
Try the latest patch....
Send us your logs.....
<\repeat_until_customer_gives_up>
<\enter_support_mantra>
And the part that really gets my temperature rising is the phrases
"Remedy writers" vs "BMC writers". As if BMC is some how "better" than
"Remedy ever was". ( Ok... I will go count to 10 again....)
--> So the poor initial released doc is Problem #1
--> So the poor maintenance of docs on the web site is Problem #2
--> The total lack of actually DOING anything for the customers are
Problems #3 through #99
My guess is that you are seeing "another incident that is part of the
larger problem that BMC has decided will NOT be fixed". ( To use ITIL
terms to describe the state of the universe. )
I am sorry about _our_ luck, but BMC appears to not be listening.
--
Carey Matthew Black
Remedy Skilled Professional (RSP)
ARS = Action Request System(Remedy)
Love, then teach
Solution = People + Process + Tools
Fast, Accurate, Cheap.... Pick two.
On 2/19/07, Anderson, Douglas W. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
**
Hi ARSListers,
Yes, I know, it's like shooting fish in a barrel to criticize BMC/Remedy
support but I am unable to resist joining in the chorus of
discontent/disgruntlement.
The BMC "support" web site is supposedly one of the primary channels via
which we receive value in return for paying substantial annual support fees.
(Or maybe I am mistaken?)
We're contemplating moving from ARS 6.0.1 to 6.3.0 to get the (broken) DST
patch, so I turned to the copy of the 6.3.0 release notes I'd stashed on my
trusty old Mac. The document, dated August 11, 2005, on its first content
page contains the following directive. "Important: To obtain the most
current version of release notes, which include all open issues, go to the
Remedy Customer Support home page: http://supportweb.remedy.com. To access
the Customer Support web site, you must have a support contract."
I figured there might have been updates since August 2005. So, I dutifully
pulled up the BMC site, logged in to prove that my employer had paid the big
bucks for access to the latest documentation, and went to the download page
for the 6.3.0 docs. The ONLY version of the release notes available to me
there was dated *January* 2005!
What am I to think, that errors were introduced into the release notes
between January and August 2005, corrected by reverting to the January
version? That *NO* issues have been discovered in the 6.3.0 release in the
past 25 months?
I think a more likely interpretation of the circumstances is that BMC/Remedy
has an incompetent organization responsible for product documentation.
I sure hope most of our support money is going to some more effective part
of the organization.
Grrrr...
Doug Anderson
Opinions expressed are necessarily mine, not necessarily those of the Mayo
Foundation.
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers
Are"
