| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 4051.1 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Aug 17 1995 08:12 | 10 |
| No way! Not only do our notes conferences discuss futures and other
things not suitable for outside view, they can also contain details
about individual customer applications which ought not to be shown
to other customers.
There do exist the ISVNET conferences which are visible to both
selected ISVs and Digital employees - these provide a safe forum for
a give and take with developers.
Steve
|
| 4051.2 | we need privacy | UTRTSC::SCHOLLAERT | OfficeServer: graceful evolution | Thu Aug 17 1995 08:43 | 91 |
| ===== Fast, commited support : MCS =====
===== Public information : STARS / ISVNET ===
Here is my reply to this subject followed by the reply
on my reply.
========================================================================
From: Jan Schollaert (SCHOLLAERT@AM_UTRTSC@UTREIS@UTO)
Date:
To: linkworks
Cc:
Subj: Internal Notes Conference
Reply requested: No Reply by date:
Hello,
As an MCS support specialist a would like to
stress that the notes conferences within Digital
are ment for Internal Use Only. They contain
fully unfiltered data. If the conferences where
world readable, I predict that the type of information would become
different. We need a little privacy.
>It's not just partners who would be interested in accessing
>this Notes database. Consider that access by LNX
>customers such as my self would improve service,
>reduce response time for problem resolution and ease the
>burden of technical support on local Digital staff.
Disagree. For each product within Digital, there
is a customer readable problem/solution database which
contains article which are technically reviewed by experts
and very often based on entries of notes conferences.
Databases have fast access, boolean query, content search.
For LinkWorks, the number of articles is limited, but
this will change soon. Its part of my job to write them.
If you want to know more, contact your local MCS rep.
Regards,
Jan
MCS Holland
From: ForMark Consulting ("[email protected]"@umc@VALMTS@VBO)
Date: 16-AUG-1995 14:13:46.89
To: [email protected]
Cc:
Subj: Re: Internal Notes Conference
Reply requested: not set Reply by date:
This is turning into an interesting debate...
>....... For each product within Digital, there
>is a customer readable problem/solution database which
>contains article which are technically reviewed by experts
>and very often based on entries of notes conferences.
>Databases have fast access, boolean query, content search.
>
>For LinkWorks, the number of articles is limited, but
>this will change soon. Its part of my job to write them.
>
The problem with relying on a *customer readable problem/solution database which
contains article which are technically reviewed by experts and very often
based on entries of notes conferences* is that many external LNX developers
are stretching the envelope in advance of Digital's own software engineers.
Alternatively, we are experimenting with LNX in different directions. The
technical problems/challenges being encountered cannot wait for academic
distillation.
Please understand that I think a *problem/solution database* would be of
value; it is the timliness that is the critical issue.
LinkWorks presents intruiging opportunities as a developer. The knowlege
base must shared in order to live up to the billing by the Gartner Group!
David
___________________________________________________________________
David Forbes
ForMark Consulting
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone (613) 599-5173, FAX (613) 599-6217
|
| 4051.3 | NO | POBOX::SEIBERTR | | Thu Aug 17 1995 09:27 | 25 |
| Are you talking about opening up *this* conference?? I think
that would be insane!! I am basically a read-only noter in this file
so I tend to browse through many of the topics. I really believe
giving the customer access to all our woes, complaints, arguments and
rat holes and so forth would be very bad for us. What possible benefit
to having a customer read all that balony could there be??
I agree we as a company need a place to hang out, comiserate and find
out answers to our questions. This is even finally turning into a
place where we can talk to Bob. I think, overall, this conference is good
for *us*. I don't think it would be appropriate for customers to pop
in at any given time.
If you mean setting up a conference specially for the customers...well,
maybe that would be ok. Then everyone would know going in that
millions of dollars of business could be on the line and behave
accordingly. It would be a faster response to customers' questions and
concerns. I still see some problems though. For example, what if a
sale was created out of the file and a couple sales people from all
over were involved. Who would get the credit? Things like that
happen everyday around here without the use of an open tool like a
notes conference. I don't think we are ready for something like that
yet.
RS
|
| 4051.4 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | Tyro-Delphi-hacker | Thu Aug 17 1995 09:36 | 14 |
| RE: .3
I don't think anyone would suggest opening this or any other similar
conference up to customers. In fact, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable
about opening up any existing, previously-internal conference up to
customers: the risk of something 'dodgy' coming to light, is too great,
and we don't have the resources to edit them.
That said, I believe it would be a very good idea to have *new* technical
conferences open to selected customers, in which we can partake. There
would be more of benefit than otherwise. Dan's WebGroupware stuff seems
like a good start...
Cheers, Laurie.
|
| 4051.5 | | DRDAN::KALIKOW | W3: Surf-it 2 Surfeit! | Thu Aug 17 1995 09:39 | 35 |
| I don't think it would be a good move to make our private DECnotes
conferences open to the public, or even to verified customers. The "we
need our privacy" argument is strong enough, but I'll add to that this
question: how would the public GET to that infobase? Via TELNET to
some external system running a DECnotes client? Unlikely, imho...
I have a better (imho!:-) suggestion: That every product or service
that "wants to" should have AT LEAST two Workgroup Web Forum(tm)
conferences (or the equivalent SW functionality) associated with it,
and pointed to from (...ultimately closely integrated with) the
associated product/service InfoCenter.
* One such conference would be MARKETING-oriented -- technical
marketeers would field questions from current AND POTENTIAL
customers who have questions about the prod/service, customers
answer each others' questions (with the occasional good-natured
correction by the above-mentioned technical marketeers), and the
occasional comparison is made with the competition (under
well-understood ground rules). If appropriate or possible, a
"klick-the-tires demo" of the product would be provided for public
view. General marketing can and ultimately will also include this
channel as a tool (among others) to reach and influence customers.
* Another conference would be members-only -- restricted to paying
customers. There, they could exchange info with one another and
with us, receive patches, react to customer surveys in which we
request input on future enhancements, and suchlike.
I feel very confident that this model will be well-entrenched in at
most 18 months. To the early adopters of this mode of doing business
will come the esteem of the customers, and the envy of the industry.
Remember -- by then, all or most of OUR customers, at least, will be
well equipped with all the clients they'll need to participate: Web
browsers.
|
| 4051.6 | ... already used HP's BBS ... | MEMIT::CIUFFINI | God must be a Gemini... | Thu Aug 17 1995 10:09 | 18 |
|
RE: 0
Absolutely! And about time too!
Technical notesfiles for a customer. Unfiltered information for a
product manager/group to help mature their product.
Undoubtedly it would require *discipline* by DEC|i|g|i|t|a|l| writers
- to avoid mention of futures
- to prevent the channel from becoming 'the official support'.
After that, it is ( as Tom would say ) a win-win for both parties.
jc
|
| 4051.7 | | HDLITE::SCHAFER | Mark Schafer, Alpha Developer's support | Thu Aug 17 1995 10:31 | 12 |
| Software developers are a special group of people and should be treated
to the same information that Digital's own product developers are
privy. In the past (and currently), this has been accomplished under
non-disclosure agreements. Digital's Partner Network (ISVNET) is a
special program that uses non-disclosures and a private,
owned-by-Digital network to share information. The Software Partner
Engineering group is looking at ways of exchanging information using
the new infrastructure on the Internet. So far, we have not provided
anything that would require non-disclosure on our URL
http://www-usa.partner.digital.com/www-swdev/
Mark Schafer
|
| 4051.8 | Yes vote | KERNEL::BARNARDP | Spike | Thu Aug 17 1995 10:38 | 21 |
|
I do not see any problem with opening up notes conferences to
customers.. As previous noters said we would need some disciplines and
hard moderation, but customers could resolve a lot of their own
problems - BIG BONUS !
Customers already discuss Digital products on Newsgroups on the "Net"
that in Digital we are barred from access to. We are pushing Linkworks
into new area we can.
It is about time we put our fears in our pocket and tried something
new. When will Digital open up the CSC's to the net for logging calls?
Imagine the releif to the over burdened telephone system. What a joy
to create revenue for adhoc sales for one of support.
We are too cautious with our information...
IMHO
\_spike_/
CSC UK
|
| 4051.9 | | WLDBIL::KILGORE | Missed Woodstock -- *twice*! | Thu Aug 17 1995 10:47 | 3 |
|
Doesn't DECUS do something like this already?
|
| 4051.10 | KER - SLAM !! | MKOTS3::DQUINN | | Thu Aug 17 1995 10:51 | 24 |
| NO ! Public access to our internal notes can not be granted ! The
costs of "censorship" alone would significantly impede the functional
value. We already have "public" access available via the internet. We
should be looking at "BBS" style access for patches and things of that
nature. If customers are interested in dialouge with the company, let
them talk to the people in the business groups that represent Digital
to their accounts. Our "home" page should reflect the current
divisionalized status of the company graphically, like HPs does. This
way, in product demos and discussions we can significantly impact the
customers decision making process. If the customers want patches,
threads could be provided, or information on how to obtain the latest
and the greatest could be provided via the internet.
This is no longer a "black and white" digital style world. We must
begin to capture the attention of our customer base through color and
graphics and try to make our systems fun to use. Don't forget that the
future of technology will be based largely on entertainment, and to a
lesser extent on defense requirements.
Our notesfiles are for employees and really provide only one of the
value points to employment here. Widespread access would provide no
major competitive advantage and would only drive up the cost of
operating, controlling, and securing our computing resources.
DQ
|
| 4051.11 | Let me rephase some of that... | HLDE01::VUURBOOM_R | Roelof Vuurboom @ APD, DTN 829 4066 | Thu Aug 17 1995 11:05 | 60 |
| I probably shouldn't jump back in so fast but some clarifications
are in order - and the feedback helps structure the problem.
* I am not talking about opening _this_ notes conference. I have
enough holes in my foot already :-)
* I am not talking about a general grand opening of internal notes
conferences but only selected (by the product groups themselves)
notes conferences.
I am talking about the fundamental principle of removing the "we"
vs "them" dichotomy. "We" need privacy is quite true I am just
redefining the "we" bit a wee bit.
.1 and .2 refer to the ISV conferences to support customers and
partners yet many (in fact most) of _our_ (LinkWorks) partners
have indicated that they are not (nor will be) satisfactory for
the reasons they given in .0. Who do I believe?
The concept of supplier (in this case us) and consumer (selected
customers, partners) having access to each other systems is one
of the standard improvement scenarios in BPR excercises. Why should
this be so different?
Dan (.5) is quite right identifying two conference types: marketing
and technical. In fact, we find that the combination of Web Server
and Listserv satisfies the first requirement.
My question is on the technical type conference with closed
membership. Our partners/customers are in fact telling us that
the filter service we now have defined as part of the Digital
support service not only costs _us_ work but actually has _negative_
added value for them.
As one of our partners was so kind to point out _they_ are somtimes
pushing the envelope and telling _us_ sometimes how best to use
the product. These kind of people don't need us to filter for them
is my suspicion...
The futures issue was one that I never really understood here at
Digital. At Philips (my previous employer) we tended to be much more
aggressive (and relaxed) about indicating how and when the product
would evolve. Perhaps a bit radical ;^) but we thought the
customer should be helping tell _us_ how the product should evolve.
The concept of Proprietary Information Disclosure for a product
future simply didn't exist (we probably couldn't have spelt it
anyway :-). We simply trusted the customer/partner not to abuse
the info. In any case, the concept of PID seems to dying a merciful
death here in Digital too...
Perhaps the bottom line is the degree to which we feel we can trust
the customer or partner to not abuse or misuse confidential or "dodgy"
information...
Good discussion thanks for the inputs up to now....
re roelof
|
| 4051.12 | yes vote | BSS::C_BOUTCHER | | Thu Aug 17 1995 11:08 | 10 |
| A qualified "YES" - newly created notesfiles to allow for an open and
honest exchange with various levels of our customers would be
beneficial for them and us. Filtering of sensative information would
be an issue, but I believe it is well worth the effort.
I don't believe this needs to completely "opened up" to everyone, but
to large and strategic partners - I say "Yu becha ah".
Chuck
|
| 4051.13 | | XANADU::AMAC::CLARK | Lee Clark, 381-0422 | Thu Aug 17 1995 11:22 | 17 |
| I'd also strongly object to opening up any technical conference to which I've
previously contributed to outsiders. First, the tone of what I've sometimes
written isn't necessarily appropriate for an external audience (e.g., RTFM: page#;
or whining about insufficient resources to implement some user's totally
off-the-wall idea [oops, I didn't mean that]). Second, some of what I've written
was to support Digital's SI or other business and might not have been placed in a
conference open to potential competitors.
On the other hand, like a previous noter, I'd support creation of a new
externally-visible technical conference for the purposes cited in .0 (assuming
security issues are accommodated), provided that: monitoring and contributing to
the conference was a formal requirement of the jobs of all engineers working on
the product, the product manager, the people who provide support for the product,
and engineering mgmt for the product. Otherwise, I'd be afraid that the numerous
replies to the effect that [you should use formal channels or that the responsible
engineer or product manager doesn't normally follow this conference] would give a
bad impression which might affect our bottom line.
|
| 4051.14 | RE: 4051.11 | XANADU::AMAC::CLARK | Lee Clark, 381-0422 | Thu Aug 17 1995 11:40 | 11 |
| > The futures issue was one that I never really understood here at
> Digital. At Philips (my previous employer) we tended to be much more
> aggressive (and relaxed) about indicating how and when the product
> would evolve. Perhaps a bit radical ;^) but we thought the
> customer should be helping tell _us_ how the product should evolve.
At least in Digital's software business, it's rather presumptuous to assume that a
particular product has a future, beyond (possibly) the upcoming release. Allowing
customers to plan some major part of their businesses around the features we
"plan" to include in V(next+1) of DEC<decision | spell | take-your-pick> would not
have been good.
|
| 4051.15 | Well...Maybe.... | SPECXN::REESE | How much is that ALPHA in the window? | Thu Aug 17 1995 11:41 | 29 |
| Just my $0.02:
I see some merit in providing some of the information in the technical
notes conferences to customers, *IF* a way of keeping sensitive or
proprietary out can be devised. I don't think that saying we
(Digits) must be disiplined in what we put into the conference is going
to work. First, it only takes one person to "forget" and our
sensitive/proprietary information is now winging its way to every
site on the Internet. Second, I like the openness of the notes
conferences. I don't think I will use the notes conferences as readily
if I have to self censor my note and knowing that it may end up being
seen by our entire customer population.
I don't think the standard notes conference will provide an adequate
filtering mechanism. Possibly someone reviewing all the notes in
selected conferences for technical content and placing this information
in a customer readable notes conference would be OK. However, this
brings up concerns about the costs involved in reviewing everything.
Some conferences, such as Digital UNIX, are pretty active. Selecting
10-20 such conferences could involve a number of people.
Another thought would be to ditch the idea of a customer readable notes
conference and just put selected information straight into the
appropriate news group.
As stated above, just my $0.02.
Carl
|
| 4051.16 | M. Fermat, o� �tes-vous?? | DRDAN::KALIKOW | W3: Surf-it 2 Surfeit! | Thu Aug 17 1995 11:55 | 25 |
| Beg to differ...
.15> and just put selected information straight into the appropriate
news group.
* What if there ISN'T an appropriate news group? It's quite a hassle
to set up a new one... and how can you ensure that the ISPs that
your entire customer base uses will "carry" said newsgroup?
* What if the customer base expands past those who are comfortable
with and have access to newsreaders?
(Corollary: Have you ever found a newsreader that you wouldn't be
embarrased to try teaching to your most computer-inexperienced
relative/colleague?)
* What if someone (DIGITAL employee or (worse!) a customer) carelessly
says something actionable or otherwise yucky and it's released into
the newsgroup replication stream. Can you ever call it back and/or
cancel it?
Curiously enuf (-:shock horror!:-), I have just found a solution to
this knotty problem, but this meagre margin (and this dumb client, to
boot!) is too short to contain it...
|
| 4051.17 | | HDLITE::SCHAFER | Mark Schafer, Alpha Developer's support | Thu Aug 17 1995 12:03 | 30 |
| Roelof,
I think this may be the crux of the matter. Partners want to talk
about alot more than just technical stuff. Mr. Forbes note in the
Partnernet conference has gotten no reply because it's about pricing.
As you can see, he wants information that even he considers to be
"more 'restricted'."
Mark
Software Partners Engineering group
<<< CSONET::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]LINKWORKS.NOTE;1 >>>
-< LINKWORKS >-
================================================================================
Note 122.0 New Discount Structure?? No replies
ISVNET::FORBES 13 lines 8-AUG-1995 12:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This conference has gotten awful quiet since the LNX LISTSERV started
up...hm...
I think this question is best asked in a more "restricted" forum.
With the new LNX pricing schedule, is there an incremental volume discount
available?. For large opportunities, ie 200 seats, there used to be a
15% volume discount, which is layered on the VAR pricing scheme.
What are the discount plans??
David Forbes
ForMark Consulting
|
| 4051.18 | Good idea, hard to implement... | GLDOA::WERNER | Still crazy after all these years | Thu Aug 17 1995 12:16 | 50 |
| FWIW - I'm relatively active in various Notes Conferences, many as a
RON, and have certainly contributed my share of entries that I later
had at least second thoughts about. My observations are that the more
technical conferences that I visit seem less prone to the kinds of BS,
whining and negativity that show up in this conference. However, even
in the technical conferences, some things can come out that, while
perhaps true, are not in the best interests of the company, if shared
without comment or context.
The other observation, which I would make only
here in an internal conference, it that such an open environment would
remove any remaining doubts that our customers might have about how
thin we actually are in the engineering ranks that support certain
products. We actually benefit from the residual, albeit false, view
that Digital remains somehow this giant product engineering company,
with hundreds or thousands of code crunchers behind the green curtain.
I still recall how disappointed I was several years back after I fought
my way past all of the Product Managers, Product Marketing Managers and
Product Whatever Manager layers and finally got to the "team" of two
real engineers who were supporting a relatively important product.
Sometimes maintaining the facade may be more important than sharing all
and hoping for a positive outcome.
Having said all of the above, I would agree with the creation (or
better support of exisiting ones) of some Notes-like mechanism for
knowledge sharing. I believe, as one of the customers stated, that
Digital actually has as much to learn and benefits from this as the
customers do. Many times they are way out in front of us in how they
use what we've given them as a basic tool or technology. We need that
learning and feedback channel.
I had the pleasure of participating in just such an experience recently
as a member of the Windows 95 Beta test group. The Win95 Beta forum on
CompuServe was as open and active a group of people as I've ever hit and
I'm sure was invaluable to Microsoft as they debugged WIN95. The folks
who supported that conference from MS seemed to have the support of the
conference in their job definitions and were constantly answering questions
and chasing issues. I suspect that we need something similar for things
like Linkworks. The Win95 Beta forum on CServe supported both
developers and end-user types. My observation of the MS Beta forum was that
the communications, both ways, was at time filtered, i.e. the MS person
fielding a question had to take it to the engineers for an answer, and
at times raw - some MS engineers participated directly. Perhaps that
forum can serve as a model for us. Microsoft certainly seems to like
the idea and is continuing to use the beta forum concept with other
developing products. They do not seem as enthused about using that
approach to support on-going products.
-OFWAMI-
|
| 4051.19 | was just a suggestion.... | SPECXN::REESE | How much is that ALPHA in the window? | Thu Aug 17 1995 12:41 | 49 |
|
RE: .16
Posting the information directly into the news groups was merely a
suggestion. I know it is not perfect nor did I mean to imply that it
is. This may be a way of reading a large percentage of the customer
population quickly as many customers *do* read news groups.
>> * What if there ISN'T an appropriate news group? It's quite a
>> hassle to set up a new one... and how can you ensure that the ISPs
that
>> your entire customer base uses will "carry" said newsgroup?
If there isn't an appropriate news group then maybe Digital should take
it upon itself to create the conference. One the other hand if no
one else cares enough to create the conference then maybe we shouldn't
worry about it either. I don't know. This will have to be decided
if/when such a thing comes to pass.
If the news group is useful to the customer they will "carry" the
newsgroup. If it is not useful they won't "carry" it. That is up
to the customer.
If they don't have access to news groups then the customer is going
to have to use some other method like DSN-Link, call the CSC, or use
one of the Internet mailing lists to name but three to get the
information.
In .15 I said:
>> I see some merit in providing some of the information in the
>> technical notes conferences to customers, *IF* a way of keeping
>> sensitive or proprietary out can be devised.
Presumably if notes were placed into a customer readable forum they
would be screened. Presumably all "actionable or otherwise yucky"
items
would be filtered out.
As to news readers: While I don't claim to have a lot of experience
with news readers, the two or three that I have used have been pretty
bad. Perhaps a bit more intuitive than say 'vi' but not much. I
gringe at the thought of teaching a news reader to a computer
inexperienced person.
Again just my $0.02.
Carl
|
| 4051.20 | Seperation of Church and State... | DECWET::WHITE | Surfin' with the Alien | Thu Aug 17 1995 12:45 | 14 |
| uh...IMO, no way you can combine internal discussions with external ones...
Period.
Great idea but you would need to start up *another* set of notes and firewall
the internal ones from the ones that customers access...probably for legal
reasons more than anything else...
I can see the flame session between Engineer and p*ssed-off customer now...
could get real ugly...
JMHO,
-Stephen
|
| 4051.21 | A little humor :^) | SPECXN::REESE | How much is that ALPHA in the window? | Thu Aug 17 1995 13:13 | 32 |
| One last thing. If we made our notes conferences accessible to customers
we would have to provide and maintain a dictionary of NOTES abbreviations.
Something like:
Abbreviation Stands for Meaning
------------ ---------- -------
IMHO In My Humble Opinion a) actually not, I am a pompous a** who
is trying to pretend to be humble for
the time it takes to type "IMHO".
b) I am clue-less and have no idea what
the topic is about but I am going to
say something stupid anyway
c) Pinhead!
RTFM Read The Fine a) We spent a lot of time writing the
Manual (or something the manual. We want *someone* to read
to this effect) it
b) If you aren't going to take the
time and effort to open the manual
and read it I'm not going to help
you.
BTW By The Way a) I am in a good mood and I will
answer your silly question. If you
had RTFM'ed like you should have you
would have found your answer on your
own.
Carl
|
| 4051.22 | Good idea, probably wrong time... | LACV01::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Thu Aug 17 1995 13:24 | 12 |
|
Stephen is probably more right than he suspects (.20). The critical
issue in my mind is how you control the DIGITAL part of the equation;
ie. who within us is the filter, the answerer, the eng/mfg type, the
mkt type, the "sales" type, - this can get real ulgy, real quick.
Maybe when we grow-up a tad more and become better focused on our
customers as opposed to ourselves. At this juncture, I see more
problems than benefits.
the Greyhawk
|
| 4051.24 | Internet... it's there, now lets USE IT! | CONSLT::OWEN | Stop Global Whining | Thu Aug 17 1995 13:41 | 20 |
| What we need is a better corporate presence on usenet newsgroups...
every product group, every software group, etc. should have someone
who's job it is to monitor the group(s) and answer questions. That's
not a full time job, but someone should do it. A few people already do
it, but I believe it's been primarily on a volunteer basis.
We might also think about expanding the comp.sys.dec newsgroup to
something like:
comp.sys.dec.workstations
comp.sys.dec.servers
comp.sys.dec.networks
comp.sys.dec.pc
comp.sys.dec.software
comp.sys.dec.misc... etc.
All of our documentation should point to those groups as possible
sources of information and service.
-Steve
|
| 4051.25 | notes for all | GLADYS::ORME | MadVax | Thu Aug 17 1995 19:25 | 192 |
| Browsing around the internet nresdroups the other day I listed all news groups
that mu software (news for windows nt) could find. Following are the entries
from 'dec.notes.'. Can I see them because the software looks internally as well
as externally or can the world see them?
rgds ted
dec.notes.announcements 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.announcements.easynet_conferences 615 698 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.adobe-illustrator 19 22 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.cbr 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.cda_developers_kit 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.cma 390 448 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.decforms 347 366 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.decladebug 207 242 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.decnsr 425 519 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.decplan 5 5 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.decwindows_user_interface 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.dsnlink 95 103 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.dw-mail 13 20 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.fuse 131 147 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.news-backbone 40 76 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.notes-news 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.office_filter 3 2 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.oo_tool_info 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.opencp 77 107 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.pan 15 15 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.ultrix-mail 115 135 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.vnews 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.vuit 3 2 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.windows_office 2353 2744 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.xnotes 5 4 Postings allowed
dec.notes.applications.xrn 51 51 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.alpha_examples 4 3 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.alpha_migration_tools 112 138 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.alphanotes 429 428 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.club_unix 23 22 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.dce-products 561 708 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.dce-program 94 111 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.digital_unix 1698 2382 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.dw_examples 89 94 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.gnu 54 65 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.korn_shell_programming 7 6 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.microvax 156 188 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.motif 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.msu 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.ninja 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.nt-developers 323 396 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.osf 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.oskits 43 42 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.porting_to_ultrix 4 3 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.sco_unix 19 27 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.stars 159 215 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.sun_users 31 36 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.system_v 5 4 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.ultrix 189 240 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.ultrix-disk-shadow 5 4 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.ultrix_crashes 4 3 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.ultrix_mls_plus 43 51 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.ultrix_striping 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.ultrix_tools 5 4 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.ultrix_tuning 7 9 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.unix_printing 199 245 Postings allowed
dec.notes.basesys.windows-nt 1417 1720 Postings allowed
dec.notes.cim 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.cim.decsim 2 1 Postings allowed
dec.notes.cim.mech_design 7 6 Postings allowed
dec.notes.cim.spice 7 6 Postings allowed
dec.notes.electronic_pub 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.electronic_pub.postscript 49 53 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.ada 342 383 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.c_plus_plus 706 821 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.dec_fortran 53 52 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.deccxx 2 1 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.languages 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.lisp 2 1 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.lse_bugs 45 70 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.lsedit 37 40 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.object_oriented 10 9 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.prolog 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.languages.ultrix_sql 2 1 Postings allowed
dec.notes.misc 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.misc.acm_ieee 6 5 Postings allowed
dec.notes.misc.askenet 957 1084 Postings allowed
dec.notes.misc.consumer 21 59 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.access_servers 1 0 Moderated
dec.notes.networking.arpa_internet 59 72 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.decnet-ultrix 16 18 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.decnis 457 547 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.gateways 139 143 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.internet_tools 3435 3953 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.interoperability 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.isdn 72 86 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.mcc 82 81 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.netmgt 16 15 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.netview 326 470 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.nfs 25 29 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.pwultrix 31 36 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.snagwy 794 885 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.snmp 32 38 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.sync_drivers_ultrix 10 12 Postings allowed
dec.notes.networking.x25_ultrix 22 22 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.algorithms 2 1 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.cscw 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.digital 3316 4227 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.digital_artlibrary 66 65 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.educational_computing 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.formal_verification 4 4 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.internal_equipment_group 6 5 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.osf-dme 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.security_information 69 68 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.software_licensing 102 133 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.srcnotes 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.telework 30 30 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.uk_digital 1217 1442 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.usability 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.uss 15 35 Postings allowed
dec.notes.other.war_story 11 12 Postings allowed
dec.notes.pc 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.pc.decwindows 368 449 Postings allowed
dec.notes.pc.handheld 6 5 Postings allowed
dec.notes.pc.ibmpc-95 1408 1904 Postings allowed
dec.notes.pc.ibmpc_shareware 696 764 Postings allowed
dec.notes.pc.mipsco 7 6 Postings allowed
dec.notes.pc.mswindows 895 938 Postings allowed
dec.notes.pc.windx 731 883 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.activities 8 9 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.arts 81 86 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.audio 875 943 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.beer 132 131 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.books 64 68 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.boston_eats 27 30 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.cars_uk 1588 1798 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.catalogs 16 15 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.cd 30 35 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.cdswap_munich 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.classified_ads 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.climbing 33 33 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.commusic 218 261 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.cycles 664 805 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.digital_investing 722 826 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.euro_skiing 221 225 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.flying 201 200 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.garden 313 376 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.hamradio 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.hiking 118 128 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.home_work 1190 1349 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.photo 185 209 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.riverrat 14 15 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.running_club 112 121 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.satellite_tv_europe 80 79 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.skiing 525 536 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.video 239 260 Postings allowed
dec.notes.personal.woodworking_and_tools 161 186 Postings allowed
dec.notes.technology 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.technology.ai 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.technology.ask_ssag 1450 1699 Postings allowed
dec.notes.technology.content-retrieval 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.technology.decathena 11 14 Postings allowed
dec.notes.technology.dechips 1 0 Moderated
dec.notes.technology.expert 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.technology.formal_methods 2 1 Postings allowed
dec.notes.technology.sequoia-2000 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.technology.telephones 74 78 Postings allowed
dec.notes.terminal 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.terminal.decwindows_programming 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.terminal.postscript_printing 1590 1794 Postings allowed
dec.notes.terminal.x 27 31 Postings allowed
dec.notes.test 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.test.test 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.valuing_diffs 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.valuing_diffs.christian-perspective 3335 3868 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide 1 0 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.basingstoke 267 280 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.deutsch 448 447 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.gb92 181 184 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.german_englisch 1 4 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.germany 24 23 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.jpnclt 19 18 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.munich 15 14 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.new_hampshire 1696 1826 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.san_francisco 31 31 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.scotland 287 295 Postings allowed
dec.notes.worldwide.worldwide 21 21 Postings allowed
|
| 4051.26 | | EEMELI::BACKSTROM | bwk,pjp;SwTools;pg2;lines23-24 | Thu Aug 17 1995 19:42 | 5 |
| Re: .25
They're only visible internally.
...petri
|
| 4051.27 | | SMURF::t1p1.zko.dec.com::pbeck | Paul Beck, ALPHA::pbeck | Fri Aug 18 1995 00:05 | 6 |
| It's got nothing to do with your software "looking internally" except insofar
as it's connecting to an internal news server. The news servers inside the
firewall will not "export" these internal groups outside of the firewall.
If you connect to an external news server (e.g. using Compuserve or AOL)
you won't see the dec notes groups.
|
| 4051.28 | It's in there | STOWOA::KALINOWSKI | | Fri Aug 18 1995 12:22 | 48 |
| re .Note 4051.8 by KERNEL::BARNARDP "Spike"
>It is about time we put our fears in our pocket and tried something
>new. When will Digital open up the CSC's to the net for logging calls?
>Imagine the releif to the over burdened telephone system. What a joy
>to create revenue for adhoc sales for one of support.
Spike
We do. If a contract customer comes in off the MCS home page from the
Digital home page and goes to DIA, we ask which country before
telneting them into their local call handling system. This suppliments
the thousands of calls a month we take around the world via modem
and X.25. We are just starting the marketing campaign to let customers
know about this new way in.
(http://www.service.digital.com/html/dia.html)
It's a hack, but it works, and customers can check the status
on each of their calls too. In a couple of weeks we will
be starting to Field Test a true WEB gui into MCS.
The reason we use an application to take calls rather than a conference
is that Digital accepts responsibility to work on the problem,
unlike asking a question on some BBS/Compuserve conference where maybe
someone will answer your question, or maybe nobody will.
For more on this, I suggest you contact Pete Alvis in your building.
He is responsible for the UK, and is up on all the latest developments.
>We are too cautious with our information...
Gotta disagree with you on this Spike. I have been through too many
witch hunts trying to track down how a customer got privledged
information from one of our internal technical systems, or in it's
worse form, a competitor has a copy of some derogitory reference from
one of internal systems.
Lots of the info you use in your CSC is made available to customers
with the same tools. BUT the data has been checked in great detail to
make sure it is fit for release to outside interests. We spend a
fortune on these activities, but they are worth the cost of avoiding
law suits, or worse, giving out bad information to our customers.
john
|
| 4051.29 | ta | KERNEL::BARNARDP | Spike | Sat Aug 19 1995 22:55 | 19 |
|
John,
Cool reply - It's good to see that the net is opening up, however this
has not happened in the UK. Thanks for the URL I'll check it out.
There are discussions "on how best to..." but these can go on for too
long.
I work in Escalation Managment in the CSC and have to be careful what
information is passed to the customer with product "features" that
customers find! I still believe we are over cautious with our
information - its an opinion, and like noses every one's got one!
Regards & Thanks
\_spike_/
|
| 4051.30 | Roelof, did you know you'd be in front of the fan? | DPDMAI::EYSTER | Livin' on refried dreams... | Mon Aug 21 1995 13:02 | 24 |
| Christ, you'd think we were talking about sending the Shroud of Turin
to a Laund-O-Rama or throwing Nancy Reagan to Metallica roadies, based
on some of these responses! To those of you who say "NO! IT CAN'T BE
DONE!"...too effin' bad, we already did it. And it's workin' just
fine, thank kyew! I would recommend it to any other interested group
in a heartbeat.
We use a facility on SEETRA to grant access to conferences set up for
both Digital and customers. Although new, this is proving to be a
great benefit, generating sales, answering questions *once* in *one*
place instead of parroting the same answer for each customer, providing
on-line technical assistance, training schedules, and a hell of a lot
of customer good will.
We, of course, do *not* open our internal conferences that contain
proprietary information or any notes entered by myself, Corson, or
Roelof. This would be bad. Very bad. However...
"If the only tool you got is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail"
Let's meet the customers needs here first. That's what keeps my dock
fees paid, in the long run.
Tex
|
| 4051.31 | | KERNEL::BROWNM | DRACO | Mon Aug 21 1995 13:33 | 43 |
| Having just read the entire string of these notes I have a couple of
comments to make,
first of all someone was talking about the dificulty in creating new
newsgroups, why not create a dec.* hierarchy which we control, we can
then create as many different groups as possible, then add and remove
as we wish, it shoudln't be too dificult to propogate these around the
globe, who isn't going to take these newsgroups?
There seem to be 3 options being bandied around,
1)
new notes conferences created with selected customer/partner access
which Digital engineering gives information/advise and the
customers/partners can talk amongst themselves also.
2)
newsgroups that everyone has access to that Digital people respond to
only if they have time.
3)
Workgroup Web access by selected customers/partners which Digital
engineering offer advise and information plus customers/partners
discuss amongst themselves.
I think the 1st option is the most hassle, setting up access to a
dedicated machine that customers/partners can dial-in/telnet/whatever
into and participate.
The 2nd option is the most frightening and I think not what the
customers/partners want. Anything that someone says is immediately
world readable. news postings can be killed, but it's not guaranteed.
The only solution is moderated newsgroups whereby you post by e-mailing
the moderator and he/she validates the posting and posts it. Time
consuming and not very productive.
The final option looks pretty good to me. Not only is it fairly easy
to set up - we already have external Web pages, but it is password
controlled and we can only let trusted employees as well as
partners/customers have access.
Mark
|
| 4051.32 | | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName! | Mon Aug 21 1995 13:53 | 3 |
| Bingo!!
:-)
|
| 4051.33 | So, Tex, spill the beans... | HLDE01::VUURBOOM_R | set prof/person | Mon Aug 21 1995 15:07 | 13 |
| For the benefit of all: how does SEETRA work? How does one get it
set up for a particular product? Our thoughts were gravitating
towards setting up a new conference accessible via a password
protected WWW gateway bringing partners into the fold and
an Internet news group for the day to day technical questions...
It sounds that SEETRA might be part of the solution.
An important aspect is the inter-partner/customer dialogue
scenario - we want to avoid the Digital-as-the-center-of-the-universe
mind set.
re roelof
|
| 4051.34 | | MSBCS::EVANS | | Mon Aug 21 1995 15:12 | 6 |
| Bill Gates' new Microsoft Network is content poor. Why not have Bob Palmer
offer to sell him access to the Digital notesfiles to be part of Gates'
network offering?
Jim
|
| 4051.35 | Hope this helps a bit | DPDMAI::EYSTER | Livin' on refried dreams... | Mon Aug 21 1995 16:20 | 11 |
| Roelof, I don't know all the details. Our users basically have dial-up access
to captive individual accounts on SEETRA. They then can go into notes
and add the conferences specific they're authorized for (everything is
member only). We inside Digital merely add these conferences (after
the mod authorizes us).
No web-site yet (but it's in the works). Contact Kat Puckett
(DPDMAI::PUCKETT) for more info. She's also the I-net genie-us that's
looking at creating us a web page, I believe.
Tex
|
| 4051.36 | SEETRA meets the needs of many | PCBUOA::SWANEY | Hellooooo Newman! | Mon Aug 21 1995 16:30 | 17 |
|
SEETRA info see VTX SEETRA
for account info contact Charlie Boskin @ MRO USCTR2::CBOSKIN
as for adding note topics it's pretty easy. Once the notes conference
is added on SEETRA then to anybody already on the easynet it's nothing
more than adding that address to your notebook.
As for the customer you are right it's not the simplest or cutting edge
way of doing things but this dialup system has been around since 1987
and there are now over 1200 external customer/supplier/consultants
out there communicating with over 1000 different Digital folks a month
and for the Digital end it's easy.. just another node to send mail to.
Bill
|
| 4051.37 | | DPDMAI::EYSTER | Livin' on refried dreams... | Mon Aug 21 1995 17:18 | 2 |
| Thanks, Bill. Put Roelof down for a cold one at the 401 next time he's
up there! :^]
|
| 4051.38 | Tex, we're (way) behind you 100% :^) | HLDE01::VUURBOOM_R | set prof/person | Tue Aug 22 1995 04:49 | 6 |
| > We, of course, do *not* open our internal conferences that contain
> proprietary information or any notes entered by myself, Corson, or
> Roelof. This would be bad. Very bad. However...
Except for the slight accidental error of including our names,
me and greyhawk agree with you 100% :-)
|
| 4051.39 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | Tyro-Delphi-hacker | Tue Aug 22 1995 05:47 | 8 |
| RE: <<< Note 4051.32 by DRDAN::KALIKOW "DIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName!" >>>
� Bingo!!
� :-)
Hey Dan! See .4
Laurie$talking_to_myself.
|
| 4051.40 | ;*) | BIGQ::GARDNER | justme....jacqui | Tue Aug 22 1995 11:16 | 5 |
|
#1... ARAMANI, probably LOUIS of Boston.
|
| 4051.41 | If it works, use it... | LACV01::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Wed Aug 23 1995 13:36 | 7 |
|
Sounds good to the fisherfolk in FL (re: SEETRA). Fully intend to
explore this further for my growing good buddies at Blockbuster.
And no, you cannot get free videos ;-)
the Greyhawk
|
| 4051.42 | | DPDMAI::EYSTER | Texas twang, caribbean soul | Wed Aug 23 1995 13:40 | 2 |
| And while you're at it, Corson...why haven't you sold them on DEC/EDI
yet? Slacking off or the golfing too good?
|
| 4051.43 | Stop puuting that stuff in your water... | LACV01::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Wed Aug 23 1995 15:21 | 8 |
|
First got to get them to understand what EDI is. Then I'll sell
'em...
Geez, can't please anybody these days...
the Greyhawk
|