> On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 06:30:59PM +0100, Robert Waldner wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:18:31 +0100, Dariush Pietrzak writes: > > >> which are useful unless you have to manage lots of those boxes, > > > > >I wouldn't know. > > >but isn't that what OpenView is for? and is unbeatable in that field? > > > > I consider BrokenView to be in the field of BigBuckMoneyBurn-ware ... > > Indeed. I've yet to meet anyone that has used it and -liked- it. > > The most common reason to run OV is "we installed some vendor hardware > and they only let us manage it with OV".
This now explains to me why the networking team at my old company, having had the UNIX, TCP/IP admin side install openview for them at vast expense. Then still relied on us to troubleshoot whenever there were problems.... We used errrr ping, traceroute, tcpdump etc
