Really Rick? Are you certain?
________________________________ From: Rick Cook <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 3:40 PM Subject: Re: John Doe ** It isn't his real name, LJ. You didn't do anything wrong. Rick On Oct 15, 2011 10:26 AM, "LJ LongWing" <[email protected]> wrote: ** >I did ask if that was your real name…this is the first time I have seen that >you said it is…I was simply curious and asked a question. Sorry that you >consider that question harassment. I’ll consider the matter closed if you >would like. > >From:Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Doe >Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 10:50 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 > >** >Joe, > >You logic is off. How do I know your real name is Joe? I don't and neither of >you know if my real name is NOT Jonathan Doe. There are a few people who have >that name. But see I don't accuse you of this as you both have now done. > >If your way of saying hello is accusing someone of hiding their real name when >it might be their real name then you have some serious problems. This has >nothing to do with the subject matter, sorry. > >I have identified myself and you continually harass me. It doesn't matter how >senior you are harassment is harassement and I am asking nicely to please stop. > >Thank you, >Jonathan Doe > > >________________________________ > >From: Joe Martin D'Souza <[email protected]>; >To: <[email protected]>; >Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 >Sent: Fri, Oct 14, 2011 5:30:41 PM > >LJ has been known to this forum for a few years and I can assure you he >doesn’t harass people participating on here.. > >It is one of the forums etiquette if you are not aware, to identify yourself >instead of coming in as John Smith. Dan Bloom the founder of this list had >compiled a few list etiquette a few years ago, and identifying yourself was >one of them. If you do not wish to identify because it may be against your >corporation policies or whatever other reasons, you could say so and we all >understand that, but its presumptions to assume that a long timer such as LJ >is harassing you by asking to identify yourself.. Its an attempt to keep this >list not just rich in its technical content, but to build a true social circle >of Remedy professionals.. > >I do understand you may be relatively new on here so may not be aware of this >lists etiquettes, but I’m sure Dan would be happy to send them to you if you >do wish to go through them.. > >Cheers > >Joe > >From:John Doe >Sent:Friday, October 14, 2011 12:59 PM >Newsgroups:public.remedy.arsystem.general >To:[email protected] >Subject:Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 > >** >What does my login ID have to do with the subject matter, sir? >Please do not harass fellow posters or it will be reported. >Thank you. > > >________________________________ > >From: LJ LongWing <[email protected]>; >To: <[email protected]>; >Subject: RE: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 >Sent: Fri, Oct 14, 2011 3:29:30 PM >John, >I noticed your name on the list a few days ago, and thought to myself ‘who is >that, why are they trying to hide’…so I looked back through the archives and >found posts going back to Feb timeframe…and all of the post I found are well >worded and such….just wondering if your name really is John Doe, or if you >have a different name that you are hiding for some reason. > >From:Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Doe >Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:29 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 > >** >Oh Matt...here we go again my friend, > >Unfortunately, this compatibility matrix answer falls into the all to familiar >category of "latest versions and higher are supported." This was also the >answer to Windows 2008 server 64 bit. Because the compatibility matrix states >as long as the VENDOR does not significantly change their software higher >versions are supported. When is their a higher version not supported? Answer >- there isn't a time. Respectfully, this falls under the SDLC of release it >and the community will find the bugs. I never used to see this happen >before the exponential growth of ARS into the BMC movement. Mostly, after >7.6. I understand with growth, this happens. But at what point to engineers >tell management this type of reasoning does not work in the technical world? >I appreciate the need to grow. Certainly, but at what cost? Why did Firefox >become a replacement for IE? IE had much larger growth. The answer is >because Firefox was engineered better and due to this performed better on javascript. Sometimes, it is not always about growth. > >In the case of Windows 2008 server 64 bit the OS location for the ODBC drivers >(folder location) were changed. This was not caught when you would think, >during testing of the product. We (the customer) caught this after the >official release. We filed an RFE, which has been out in RFE land somewhere >since. The official explanation and fix was blamed on Microsoft because, you >guessed it, they changed the software. My question is, when is it ever BMC's >responsibility to test the software for complete compatibility prior to >release. Not just operational compatibility? Since this fell under the >statement "compatible unless the vendor has any significant changes" we fell >under the party line of "it's compatible". When we demonstrated the >incompatibility with the ODBC we were met with silence. As seems to be a >popular technique currently employed by premier support. I mean no disrespect >because I know those engineers are doing the best they can. But they are handcuffed. > >I am not trying to sandbag here. What I am trying to say is that statement on >the compatibility matrix is a catch all and an example of a greater problem. >If you use that statement, one could logically say that as long as the >date/version of the vendor's release is a higher more current version, BMC is >compatible. Which is extremely presumptuous and the flaw with that logic is >demonstrated above. That is just one of so many examples. This is the >unfortunate case with the compatibility matrix and strategically, BMC >currently. I understand your explanation Matt. I respect it. However, it's >just not technically sound from an engineer standpoint. It is sales and >management coating over a technical flaw with the system. A wise salesman >once told me, never invite engineers to a demo. Why? Because sales >explanations are not compatible with engineers. > >Back to the point. In order for this compatibility matrix statement to really >work, Microsoft, Oracle/Sun and Red Hat would need to go to BMC and explain >every change that was made to the OS (and DB's etc). I don't believe that >will happen and honestly, BMC has probably realized this too. BMC is a one >customer among millions to these companies. However, in lue of this, complete >and correctly engineered test scenarios would catch things like ODBC folders >simply being placed in a different directory. Instead this compatibility >matrix is the fix. I am not trying to be blunt or short in any way but I have >seen this become the standard answer from BMC during 7.5 and after 7.6 >release. Unfortunately, it appears the user community is becoming the test >engineers for BMC. > >Matt, this is one of the specific problems we spoke about in the other posts. > > > > > >________________________________ > >From:"Chowdhury, Tauf" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:31 AM >Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 >** >You’re a lucky man. > >TaufChowdhury |ForestLaboratories, Inc. >Service Portfolio Manager >Infrastructure – Service Management >Office: 631.858.7765 > >From:Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Shafqat Ayaz >Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 4:22 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 > >** >I have been using IE9 with Windows 7 with ITSM 7.6.04 without any problems for >a while now. > > > >Shafqat Ayaz > > > > >________________________________ > >From:Jason Miller <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 7:03 PM >Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 >** >Could these tips be added to a BMCDN document to make them available without >having to open a support issue? > >Jason > >On Oct 12, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Matt Laurenceau <[email protected]> >wrote: >** >>The "or higher" statement on the compatibility matrix is the answer: IE9 is >>supported :) >> >>BMC Support has tips to optimize performances. >> >>Take care, >> >>Matt Laurenceau >>Senior Community Ambassador, BMC Communities >>[email protected] >>Follow me @Matt_L >>Skype: matt.laurenceau >> >> >>On 12 oct. 2011, at 20:54, Guillaume Rheault <[email protected]> wrote: >>** >>>There have been posts that there are problems with ITSM 7.6.04 and IE 9 >>>Whether ITSM 7.6.00 is compatible with IE 9... you may be the first one to >>>find out! >>> >>>Guillaume >>> >>>________________________________ >>> >>>From:Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [[email protected]] on >>>behalf of Spangler Robert C CIV USSTRATCOM/JWAC [[email protected]] >>>Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:30 PM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 >>>** >>>We are getting ready to upgrade to Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version >>>9. Does ARS 7.5 and ITSM 7.6 support these? Thanks >>>_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ >>>_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ >>_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ >_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > >_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > >________________________________ > >This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. >proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to >copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended >solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If >you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent >responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are >hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken >in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly >prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, >please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and >any copy of this e-mail and any printout. >_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > >_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ >_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ >_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
