AMEN! I can't belive how short sighted bmc has become in regard to pushing itsm/cmdb and the rest of the licensed oob apps. Especially at the expense of pushing out custom development (essentially not supporting it).
The true irony, in my opinion, is that in the decade+ that we've been struggling with converting the aruser GUI paradigm to a Web interface, the world has come full circle. Today, it's all mobile apps, and Web interfaces are on the way out. Static dimension, single window grid layouts are back in a huge way. I know what I could do with a naked arserver, and an aruser client that works on ios and android. With a few tweaks to the GUI elements to make them mobile friendly and client side plug-ins to give access to the camera, accelerometer, messaging framework and the rest ... holy moses, I know exactly what I could do with that! Change the world. That's what. On Mar 6, 2015 11:42 AM, "Ray Gellenbeck" <ray.gellenb...@redmangollc.com> wrote: > Thanks. The whole point was that some people don't even KNOW that the > engine is, well, an engine unto itself. There seems to be a trend > (marketing?) to present the image that Remedy is ONLY CMDB/ITSM. > > It's always challenging to explain to customers that those are just apps > running on a (very nice) workflow engine underneath. I'm all for canned > apps where they make sense. Ease of upgrade path, support, etc etc. > However, small steps seem to keep happening in the product evolution over > the last few versions to slowly close off the "custom-build" path and I'd > just like to ask for the server/engine to be made available *without* the > suite. As great (or not great) as anyone might feel the suite is, there > are plenty out there who want something simpler, or more modular, or > (insert complaint here). It's part of why other products (especially those > that start with S and end with W) get a lot of migration. There needs to > be more flexibility. > > It also lets you push back on customizers from a support perspective. It > won't be quite as ridiculous to have support tell you "that's been > customized, we don't support it" because if you want custom, you should buy > the naked product and build your own. > > I'm not pretending it's is any big magical answer. The request was really > just to speak to a mindset to say "quit forcing one solution as if it is > the right answer for everyone. Bring back some choice." Now if you've > pitched "Galileo" (ITSM/CMDB v9) to customers and they don't like it, make > this Plan B, a workflow engine platform where you can "roll your own." > Plenty won't like that either, but some do already and others will going > forward, and it would be nice not to have to install all the ITSM > "spagetti" if it's not going to be used. > > Make a modular installer where base is ONLY the engine and User/Group > tables. Add some option checkboxes for Email Engine, Mid-Tier, > Preferences, and other "foundation" elements some will still want in a > custom build, BUT OTHERS WON'T. > > 15 up-votes so far in just a couple days. I think I hit a nerve ;) > (/endsoapbox) > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
