Re: HMC, Operations Console, ClientAccess Console, etc.

Interesting idea.

IBM does support the use of a browser to access the 3582 tape drives.  And 
they support the use of the browser to configure the fiber switch you can 
use with them.  Although it's faster to hike my behind into the computer 
room than to use the browser to check the tape status on the 3582's.

Rob Berendt
-- 
Group Dekko Services, LLC
Dept 01.073
PO Box 2000
Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com





"Mark S. Waterbury" <mark.s.waterbury@xxxxxxx> 
Sent by: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
08/19/2004 01:27 PM
Please respond to
Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


To
"Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Fax to

Subject
HMC, Operations Console, ClientAccess Console, etc.






Hello, all:

Whether it is the "latest and greatest" Hardware Management Console, or 
the
Operations Console (that comes with the EZ/Setup CD or ClientAccess CDs), 
or
the previous generation of PC Console that was a part of ClientAccess, 
this
has always been a very "touchy" area of OS/400, unless of course you used 
a
genuine TwinAx console.

Consider some alternatives that are out there in the industry... for
example, how do you configure your LinkSys Router or Wireless hub? With a
browser, of course... ;-) And how do you configure Cisco routers, etc.?  I
believe you just telnet into it, with any telnet client.

I would like to suggest that IBM should strongly consider supporting the 
use
of any telnet client or any simple browser, by supporting a very simple
TCP/IP stack, with rudimentary telnet and/or HTTP servers, built-in, to 
talk
to this "console" (either telnet or browser)... Then, we could use almost
any device that can run a browser and can physically connect... (whether
over RS-232 or Ethernet, etc.)

This is an area of the AS/400, iSeries and now eServer (p5 and i5) that 
has
been, and apparently continues to be, far too complex and problematic, for
far too long.  I contend that IBM should search for the "best simple"
solution, rather than building yet another, ever more complex "solution"
that requires customers to purchase another separate piece of hardware 
(aka.
the HMC), which, of course, can "fail".

I mean, what's the big deal? (besides getting customers to fork over $$$ 
for
the new HMC hardware)... I can hardly believe that IBM would make much (or
any) profit on these HMCs (considering the R&D costs) ... I mean, how many
of them can they really sell?  How many does any one shop really need? How
much do these things cost, anyway?

Regards,

Mark S. Waterbury

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing 
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.