DSNlink vs. ITRC

[Willem Grooters]

Why does everyone seems to think that all VMS users have a support contract?! I don't, a lot of small-company-users dont't since it's far too expensive. It seems these VMS users are therefore excluded of _general_ information, like these examples. I won't speak for all - but I do not seek support (look for it myself) but at least, it must be available AND accessable.

I agree with Aaron that 10k hits is NO support. IMHO, 1.5K is as bad. I haven't accessed the sites like mentioned but have some experience with 'open source' (read: *x) forums: Completely inadequate by the sheer number of replies.

Just one thought: Isn't that something for Encompassus/Decus/Interex/or whatever HP-relates user organization to pick up?

[Ian Miller.]

Willem - I know lots of small and not so small companies do not have support contracts be cause they cost a lot. The examples are now available via askq.compaq.com if you format the question exactly the right way (previously only available via DSNlink for paying customers).

Aarons original point was that, as he is paying lots of money for a support contract, he should have good and easy access to example code and other support articles - otherwise this reduces the value of the expensive hp support contract.

In the UK for me DSNlink went away quite a while ago. I have yet to find a good replacement.

Parhaps if people post a question to the hp advocacy web site and it gets 5 me too votes then hp will have to responsd.

[Cass Witkowski]

In January of this year I sent an email to Mark Gorham, who is the VP for OpenVMS systems, to let him know my concerns about the future of DSNlink.

Mark had me talk to two people at HP Paul Lacombe, paul.lacombe@hp.com and George Pagliarulo, george.pagliarulo@hp.com

I suggest all those who are concerned about DSNlink going away and having to deal with ITRC in it's present state should send these two gentlemen email. I have been told that the capabilities of DSNlink will be in ITRC but I haven't seen it yet.

[Aaron Sakovich]

The letter I received from HP said that the DSNlink functionality should be replaced by various new ITRC functions, for the most part. For example:

- Replace DSNlink "Service Request" with "ITRC Maintenance and Support (Compaq Products) Support Case Manager". (I can not find this exact title on the ITRC site, but it might be the "Web based case management" I referred to in a prior post.)

- Replace DSNlink "Interactive Text Search" with "ITRC Maintenance and Support (Compaq Products) Natural Language Search (http://askq.compaq.com/)".

- Replace DSNlink "File Copy" with "Available through any HP Customer Support support (sic) agent".

- Replace DSNlink "Patch Retrieval" with "ITRC Maintenance and Support (Compaq Products) Software and Drivers".

There are 4 more items listed, too, but I think you can get the jist of the direction HP is pushing. I'm especially curious about the "File Copy" replacement -- are we to email files to HP? I'll be really interested in seeing how well a keyed indexed fixed length record data file will come out of an SMTP email system (or, worse, Outlook) without a whole lot more effort on the end-user's part.

I can understand the desire to get rid of a legacy app IF it's broken. I can understand the desire to offer new services to customers for free. I can appreciate how HP is overloaded with multiple service tools after the purchase of Compaq/Digital. But the customer should not be the one to lose service and functionality, nor should I be forced to pay for a service others receive for free, in this change.

I get the impression that the ITRC is not quite ready to take the place of DSNlink, and that HP is rushing this to the detriment of their paying customers. If the ITRC truly is the support vehicle of the future for Digital products, then I see no need for the high priced support contracts that we are paying for, and will recommend to my management that we discontinue their purchase wherever possible. I am hoping that someone can show me some benefit for our outlay of cash that I feel I must be missing. On the other hand, if this is HP's intent, please let me know, because I feel it is not entirely clearly stated in the letter I received.

Speaking for myself and not necessarily my company,
Aaron

[Mobeen_1]

I think the guys for the sake of the VMS users should make DSNLink available untill we are completely ready with the ITRC. Till such time DSNLink should be made available to the users

regards
Mobeen

[Jan van den Ende]

Hi,

I cannot say it any better than Mobeen did.

So, make that two entries to the same statement.

Jan

[Aaron Sakovich]

There is an open issue at hpuseradvocacy.com regarding ITRC and the loss of DSNlink. So far, only 3 people have voted on it -- add me, and that's 4. If the other folks here who have similar concerns are interested, you may add your vote at:

http://hpuseradvocacy.com/advocacy/metoo/metooissue.cfm?IssueID=1521

entitled: "OpenVMS Support Website". You will most likely need to register with the site to be able to vote on the issue.

Be sure to add your comments.

Aaron

[Dave Gudewicz]

Add another vote and comment to the tally.

[Ian Miller.]

me too!