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: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
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 <lj.longw...@gmail.com>;
To: <hornetl...@yahoo.com>;
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:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of John Doe
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:29 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
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" <tauf.chowdh...@frx.com>
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9
**
You’re a lucky man.
Tauf Chowdhury | Forest Laboratories, Inc.
Service Portfolio Manager
Infrastructure – Service Management
Office: 631.858.7765
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Shafqat Ayaz
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 4:22 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
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 <jason.mil...@gmail.com>
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
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 <matt.laurenc...@gmail.com>
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
matthieu_laurenc...@bmc.com
Follow me @Matt_L
Skype: matt.laurenceau
On 12 oct. 2011, at 20:54, Guillaume Rheault <guilla...@dcshq.com>
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)
[arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] on behalf of Spangler Robert C CIV USSTRATCOM/JWAC
[rspan...@jwac.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:30 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
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"_
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
