RE: [U2] UV - tech support
Tony: Just a couple of comments to follow up your excellent points. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 2:05 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UV - tech support TG: IBM is a publicly owned company and manages its IP assets in a consistent manner. As David says, this is NOT a democracy. That said, someone in the U2 group at IBM might have some latitude in this matter, so contact your IBM sales rep, your Support manager, or your U2 development contact and present your case or ask them who can help with making documentation available. (I don't know the corporate structure for U2 like I do other MV companies, sorry.) BH: That is what has precipitated this thread. Sales reps have been contacted. VARs have been contacted. Support is difficult to contact. Cases have been presented. Many have dealt with the corporate structure. Many are striving to improve the business arrangements. TG: Regarding paying to report bugs - c'mon, how long have you guys been in the IT world? I am all for open support whenever possible but there are business concerns where lines need to be drawn. Think about how expensive it is to have people answer the phone or email, and how many people abuse free services. Most of us in this industry include yearly maintenance fees as part of our normal business model. If you don't pay a vendor a support fee why do you think you are still entitled to the same support as those who do? Asking off-support customers to pay for services they use ensures that only those who are serious will get through. The offer to refund payment in the case of bugs might seem like an obvious thing to do, but in this world it's actually a generous practice that many companies do not employ. By a show of hands, how many people here pay their clients back if a bug is found in their software? I didn't think so... BH: Most, if not all, involved in this thread __are__ paying support fees. That's the irony of this all. As a side note, our company never charges for bug reports and go out of our way to track them down. TG: Regarding going through a VAR for support, I've been through this at RD. There are mixed blessings on the policy but in general it's a good policy. An informed VAR channel is a good VAR channel. BH: This may, or may not, be advantageous. The principal reason for business, which many in the IT industry are forgetful of, is there's a mutual benefit in engaging in a business relationship. The key concept here is mutual. This thread exists because of, and the above comment illustrates, the one sided nature a business relationship can take, and the consequences such a turn can have. TG: I wish people would consider the larger business issues before complaining about policies. BH: Be careful what you wish for. :-) Bill --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UV - tech support
The U2UG has been pursuing this. The IBM U2 division has tried to come up with a compromise; the details of this appeared in the IBM newsletter at the end of last year which I have attached at the end of this email. You can contact your VAR to organize for an IBM number that gives you access to the knowledge base, the instructions are in the attached details. IBM U2 is also making some effort to move some of these documents to an area outside of the current process to make it available to other U2 users such as the recent article by Mark Baldbridge. http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/edu/dm-dw-dm-0512baldridge-i.html?S_TA CT=105AGX11S_CMP=FP The U2UG is also endeavoring to build up a knowledgebase available to the U2UG members with the prototype at the following link http://www.mvopen.org/kb The U2UG is also campaigning to get more examples made available by IBM to enable developers to quickly adopt new U2 technologies, which is being considered. The U2UG board will continue to present the concerns of members over issues such as this to IBM to improve processes for the U2UG members. Organizing a petition as Chuck suggested can assist in further improving the access to documentation. Regards David Jordan U2UG Director Access to IBM Support Knowledgebase Extended to Tiered Partners and VAR --- End Users - IBM U2 OEM Partners and Master Distributors can grant access to the entitled IBM Support Knowledgebase for their associated End Users and/or Tiered Partners. The IBM U2 Support Knowledgebase is the main repository of Technical Support how-to's, hints and tips and other articles invaluable for supporting your U2 products and solutions. Access is available with the express consent of the Partner or Distributor. Full details of how Partners or Distributors request access is provided in the U2 Partners QuickPlace. If you currently hold a valid U2 OEM, Passport Advantage Express or Distributor Agreement and do not have access to this site please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] for access. The document in the U2 Partner QuickPlace is called Accessing the Knowledgebase: for Tiered Partners or VAR Endusers. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UV - tech support
Hi Tony , Thanks for the friendly response ;) One comment just for the record, I may be 'up here' but the 'company of retro developers' is actually from 'down there'. Gerry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: July 7, 2006 20:02 To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] UV - tech support Gerry wrote: Hi Tony , I will probably regret this post - I never seem to get past one or 2 before the jumping down of throats begins ;-) I pretty much regret all of mine these days, and I'm sure others do too. :^D While I agree with what you say as far as support is concerned ( and I still stand by my statement that there is now and never has been any cost to report a bug to MS That is correct but rather than disagreeing with someone's experience, I know the policy that they were presented with so I stuck to that topic. Avoiding confrontation with one person makes one's statements inaccurate with another - can't win, ergo regretful postings... , talking to a real person to find a solution can be a different story ) I must be in the minority but I have had good experience with Microsoft via e-mail and phone - I have some guys in Bangalore that keep bugging me about issues I've reported, I can't shake um! , personally I don't see access to product documentation and knowledgebase information as even remotely related to support. I look at it more as marketing. Why give away the system and not give away the info ? Full agreement. When I was at Raining Data I made the same case but of course I lost the argument and to this day one still finds docs under /support/documentation/index.html. In my case , the particular VAR I have access to ( or rather my customers have access to ) consists of a company of 'developers' none of which have cracked a manual since the 70's, any mention of sockets or xml or http or services or anything post 1980 just begets blank stares and the shaking of heads. Virtually ANY questions directed at them have to be re-directed to IBM so what would have been a 30 second knowledgebase inquiry is dragged out to 4 weeks. And what can we do about it - nada. This is where the term value-add bears inquiry. I've had a number of discussions with others that selling software, even with a business application might be value-add, but that doesn't qualify a dealer to collect support fees. There are also many of us who do not sell applications who are perfectly qualified to support DBMS and OS platforms, but we don't qualify as having enough value-add to the DBMS providers. You have to wonder why someone in management in these DBMS companies doesn't go hey, our policy is rather stupid, let's change it and only let qualified people represent us. The other side of the coin is that app providers and your company of retro developers up there are very leary about selling their products and services, while someone else take calls to support the end-user's platform. People get very proprietary about their customers. IMO, this situation is bad for the end-users and for the DBMS providers so I think it needs to be changed. So who decides who provides support? I personally believe third-party support providers should be certified by the DBMS vendor (IBM, RD, jBASE, LadyBridge, etc) to provide support in lieu of the DBMS vendors themselves. This sort of push-back in the channel would cause a massive political stir which everyone is afraid to endure, so it never happens. (As a complete aside I think people should be certified to use the internet, have kids, and work for the government too, but of course the same political stir prevents those initiatives from ever getting off the ground.) I realize that that is the way it is with IBM and I lived with quietly. I don't see the recent thread as complaining - that would imply that there is someone in a position to make a difference within earshot. It is just good old healthy venting and that's one of the good things about this kind of list, you can always find a sympathic ear even if just so that you know that you are alone in your opinions. Gerry I didn't see any complaining either and used the word complaining in a very generic sense. I just meant think about the other side. Other synonyms maybe could/should have been better: vocalizing, venting, going on, getting bent, getting upset, etc... Regards, T http:// removethisNebula-RnD.com/blog/category/tech/mv/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
