The list should have "Troll-Tags" like "Deer-Tags". Dan B. can be the game warden. Sounds like you may be getting close to busting one!
Back to the peanut gallery, -JDHood On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Rick Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > Pretty sure. I have been wrong before, but I did some research before I > said that, and I think I know your real name and where you live. As has been > said before, if you need to be anonymous for whatever reason, it isn't a > huge deal, and I won't share what I think your real name is here. > Threatening other people over it is. We are a community here. You > obviously have the technical skills and experience to be a valued member > here. The only question is your attitude toward others. Might suggest you > focus on that. > > Rick > On Oct 15, 2011 3:03 PM, "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> 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. **** >> **** >> *T**auf** **C**howdhury** **|** **F**orest** **L**aboratories**, **I**nc. >> ***** >> 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"_ >> >> >> _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"
