Carey, et al.,
The still-available January 2005 release notes also contain the advisory that
one ought to go to the web site for the latest version of the release notes,
which contain *all* open issues (the emphasis is theirs, "all" is italicized).
With the new, improved, BMC-therefore-better documentation philosophy that you
explained, that problem can be fixed inexpensively by removing the advisory
from the posted release notes. However, I doubt they'll bother to take even
that cynical step toward implementing their new documentation design.
So, individual Technical Bulletins have supposedly replaced the collected sets
of product issues formerly maintained in the release notes. Now they expect
each of us to find and download every technical bulletin for each of the
products for which we pay support to them, thereby obtaining the same
information formerly available in one place in the release notes? Have they
published a list of all such bulletins for each product so we can be certain we
have not missed any? Inquiring minds (whose livelihood regrettably depends to
some degree upon all this) want to know.
So, I returned to the BMC support website, logged in to validate my worthiness,
and browsed to the page whereon allegedly is linked all product documentation
for ARS 6.3.00.
Did I find a host of Technical Bulletins documenting "all open issues" with the
product? No. There is exactly one technical bulletin, describing the need for
Patch 20 to implement DST. That bulletin DOES NOT even include the known issues
with that implementation of DST.
So, apparently, we are expected to somehow parse their bug database for all
unresolved issues in a given release and patch. We are then expected to
decipher customers' variously worded descriptions of symptoms and GUESS what
the underlying issue is and how else it might manifest in our own environments.
And we are expected to do this repeatedly to track the current status of a
given release and patch.
Sure, I can do that - if it's my full-time job and I can contact directly each
customer who reports an issue and each technician who has worked on it. Hmmm,
do bugs identified by BMC themselves get into a database where we can readily
examine them? Or are bugs only found/reported by customers?
Considering that I intermittently have to justify to my management the
continued use of ARS as a custom-development platform (vs. Microsloth .NET,
etc.) with its attendant costs, I am becoming less and less interested in
trying to do so. BMC is making that an ever-steeper uphill slope.
Hey, BMC, have you figured out a source of revenue better than customers, or
what? Back in business school at Berkeley they taught funny ideas, probably
outdated, that customers were important to a business plan.
Doug Anderson
Opinions expressed are necessarily mine, not necessarily those of the Mayo
Foundation.
Original message:
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:55:05 -0500
From: Carey Matthew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: (rant) BMC support web, obsolete docs?
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."
<snip>
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.
<snip>
--> 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
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the
Answers Are"
