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

["Mike" <mshaw2456@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark,

IBM sunk their costs for HMC many moons ago.  The concept has been around in
the mainframe world for many years now.  If you open the door of an S/390
you will see a ThinkPad mounted in there for the same purpose.  The HMC has
also been available on the pSeries for well over a year now.

Again, this is the first round of HMC for the i5 and there will be
improvements over time

Regards,

Mike Shaw

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark S. Waterbury
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 11:28 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: HMC, Operations Console, ClientAccess Console, etc.
Importance: High

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.