Conference 7.286::digital

             <<< HUMANE::DISK$SCSI:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 4349.0        Is the Infrastructure Crumbling around us?         No replies
STOWOA::16.124.128.77::Mains "Notes from a PC...nev" 51 lines   5-JAN-1996 21:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone else have the feeling that the relatively reliable computing 
infrastructure that has made us so productive as a company is crumbling 
around our very feet?

Every day now it seems I am struggling against a never ending tide of broken 
infrastructure.  Is this the price we pay for the years of cost-obsessed 
approach to infrastructure spending?  Is this not the same as the crumbling 
bridges scenario we saw on Mass roads just a year or two ago?

To be clear I am talking about crashing networks and crashing systems.  I am 
talking about EMAIL that just doesn't go through or if it does takes 20 
minutes to get across the hall and an hour to get across the country.  I am 
talking about Web sites inside the company that take over a minute to even 
display on my PC and don't even work after hours.  I am talking printers that 
refuse to print a compound document.  I am talking about conference rooms you 
can't book without a special account.  I am talking about FAXes you have to 
go to the mailroom to get even though there are 40 FAX machines between 
your office and the MAILroom.

Is it me?  Why are we always fighting the work environment?

Why do we have clusters that go down?  I thought we solved that problems 
years ago with RA81s no less.  We used to have systems that stayed up a year 
at a time with no clean room.

Why do our networks go down?  I remember working in places at Digital where 
the MTBF for the network was in years not days.

I have even had problems getting a hold of support resources because the 
PHONE system was down!!  What is happening people?!  

How much cost are we adding to our everyday work by working around and 
through these sorts of problems?

We have to face the facts that these things are causing us to continue to
waste our most valuable resources (yes it's still people) working around the 
unreliable infrastructure.  This is a real, day to day, day in and day out, 
bottom line, go to the bank cost.  This is not nickel and dime costs but 
hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands out the window all the time.  We 
would never consider leaving a large window panel broken throughout a New 
England winter with all the heat being lost.  Why do we let this go on when 
the cost is much much higher?

When do we start measure infrastructure INVESTMENTS against these very real 
people productivity costs?  If we want a high performance organization we 
need a high performance work environment where the work flows naturally and 
people have the resources they need tobe productive.

I guess my problem is I remember when it wasn't this way and... I know it 
is not this way now at many other companies.  This too is a worry.  We have 
the technology and the know how and we say we want to compete...is it only 
the will we lack?

Is it me or do others feel this as well?

    Well said.  I work in the computer infrastructure and feel the same
    way as the base note author.  I am sure your beliefs are held by the
    majority of the employees. 
    
    I've been working in the organization for 2.5 years and the push has 
    been to continually reduce costs.  The goal is to obviously become more
    cost competive while increasing services.  What ends up happening is
    what was said in the previous note all to often.  I would guess it
    costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for the company if the computing
    infrastructure is down for 1/2 a day in one of the large New England
    buildings.
    
    As a worker bee, I have many contraints:  
    	o I bought my own Windows95 license for my computer back in August 
    	since I knew we wouldn't have the software for months (still don't 
    	even though we've supported it since September 6).
    
    	o To allow Windows 95 & Windows NT to run effectively on my PC, I had 
    	to ask my customers to help.
    
      	o I'm paying my own way throught Microsoft Certification.  
    
    	o I would guess there are over 10,000 hinote laptops throughout the c
    	corporation.  My group owns no hinotes though we're expected to fix 
    	these systems daily in a timely manner. 
    
    I could go on and on with these type of scenarios but lets get back to 
    the bigger issues at hand.
    
    A lot of work is underway to design and develop a NT corporate wide
    strategy.  Unfortunately it hasn't been developed quickly enough for
    some of the business units so you now have many solutions underway in
    the corporation.  Therefore what ends up happening is the competing 
    groups fight between themselves and deal with politics more often than
    working on the solution.  This costs the company much more money in the
    short term and in the long term when it becomes increasingly difficult
    to communicate with people in different organizations.  
    
    The solution seems so simple.  The technology is not the problem.  It
    is readily available and coming down in price each day.  Investment and
    leadership are the key.
    
    All the stake holders need to come together and design a complete future
    infrastructure design around client server technology including: NT    
    servers/backbone, NT/95 desktop clients, 100mb network lines, fully
    funded Web proxy servers, common mail platform/straegy and easily 
    obtained desktop software that is under a corporate wide license.  
    This list only highlights a few of the major issues/topics at hand.
    
    From my vintage point, all the competing infrastructure support
    organizations need to work together as a team, communicate honestly
    and in a timely manner to help  make this company ready for the 21st 
    century.  Otherwise, not only will this company continue to waste millions
    of dollars due to system downtime and not having the tools to do the job, 
    but it will also miss many future opportunities to grow its business
    and continue to be surpassed as the xth largest computer company in the
    world (We've gone from second to I believe fifth after HP, Compaq,
    Intel and we will soon be surpassed by Apple, Microsoft and AT&T's 
    new company).
    
    It seems so simple.  Everyone come together, work together and
    communicate to help this company compete effectively with its competitors.  
    Will it happen?   Time will only tell.
    
    Just my thoughts,
    
    Larry                                    

>    Will it happen?   Time will only tell.
    
I doubt it, not for a long time anyway.  Too many senior people have become 
entrenched in playing politics and shoving costs onto other BUs to prop up 
their own figures.  We certainly won't see an overnight change, and in the 
meantime Digital's demise continues almost unnoticed.  I find it very 
depressing, personally.

Chris.

    I must reply to all these..
    
    I work in the Customer Support centr supporting Alpha Products and PC
    products. Our group keep the whole of the Local area up and running.
    our IM&T group havn't get a clue and arn't training people, our NOC
    aren't given the funds to do its job correctly, our help desk people
    ask us to help thier customers out cause they havn't get a clue, and
    when a system goes down, we are expected to bring it up. all becuase
    the people who run these are just not good enuf.
    
    Most of the Network Operation Centre people don't understand IP but
    they think decnet will keep them going ok. Well I am sorry, but it
    doesn't cut it in this day and age.. We have a network here that is
    lucky to stay useable, due to it being used 100% at all times, so you
    are unable to get any new work done, due to the network being useless,
    and I complain I get told.. "Who's going to fund it".. I have this new
    catch cry .. Do we all work for Digital or just different Cost
    Centres.. Maybe I should say I work for the Company 7CQ and not
    digital.. oh I long for the old days when these kinds of things could
    be relied upon..
    
    
    Sigh
    

I wouldn't say that the people we have aren't of the right calibre, it's more 
to do with the fact that training is underfunded, many of the staff are 
overstretched due to headcount reductions to save costs, few people get much 
exposure to newer technologies because such niceties aren't funded... er, you
get the idea anyway, cost cutting looks good on paper, but not in the real 
world.

And as to the `who do we work for' question, it's easy to forget that we *all* 
work for Digital with all the inter Business Unit and Cost Centre bickering 
that's constantly going on so that people can present better figures and 
margins for *their* part of the company (presumably to get some of that 
elusive funding or to avoid being `resized'... or, in the case of some people, 
for the cause of personal advancement at any cost)

Chris.

    
    	Welcome to the brave new world of re-engineering, rightsizing,
    reorganization for profitability, etc.
    
    	Large organizations do not fail by sudden occurances, they just
    slowly shrink into shells. Corporate myopia is a by-product of corporate
    cultures that denigrate risk-taking, reward political savvy, and focus
    resource allocation on "safe bets".
    
    	Today we are in what I call :Control Mode:, a organizational state
    that believes all peers are after *my job*, all subordinates are
    incompetent or *they'd have my job*, and all superiors are to be
    granted *all-knowing* status without question. This creates an
    environment where the ability to "give good slides" is more important
    than the ability to execute a strategy, and the only requirement for
    success is the individual's "ability to get along".
    
    	To me it is kind of like what IBM used to be in the '70s.
    Anybody home?
    
    			the Greyhawk
    
    	

    >Does anyone else have the feeling that the relatively reliable
    >computing infrastructure that has made us so productive as a company is 
    >crumbling around our very feet?
    
    It's not just a feeling, there are hard facts to show that as seen in
    previous comments.
    
    Here too our local network is slow due to load. On the other hand, we don't
    obviously have very much tools and resources to check, whether the
    load is due to lack of tuning or due to actual necessary load.
    
    Our connection to the rest of the corporate begins to be a disaster.
    It's veeeery sloooow to get any web material in the afternoons our time,
    when most of the customer demos should be held and it's almost
    impossible to get access to local outside web services. Also, our local
    usenet news server is more and more behind, because of the network
    load. Due to this, users go to servers abroad, which makes the situation
    worse. Even, if the feed were ok, most local coutry newsgroups would still 
    be missing, because they don't come through corporate feed chains. There 
    is no funding to increase the speed. Still, when the structure
    of networked applications is planned, the network is not a real issue 
    (according to some comments, which I have received), because the network 
    capacity is so cheap 8-|.
    
    Having support for almost anything new is up to individual non-official
    activity. IS time goes primarily to customer work, daily mandatory
    operations and fireman's work.
    
    Due to this, we are also rapidly losing our real life experience and
    competence in systems and applications, which are bought and used by
    our customers. Messaging is one of primary examples. Here, we were a
    market leader 5 years ago. Now we are hardly recognized any more. This
    trend is also supported by corporate's policy to centralize internal
    support functions.
    
    To my understanding, most of the heavy network load is coming from
    Internet traffic. Still, corporate policies are very limiting in 
    allowing local internet connections, despite the fact, that it would
    be a lot cheaper to get the capacity that way, than to get it through
    expensive international private connections. I will send a request to
    get a local Internet connection during this week. Hopefully we can get
    it. It's also an image issue. I made a quick check of, how other
    computer companies treat this. Here are the results:
    
    	    ibm.fi          yes	    through a local service provider
                                    mail included
                                    www included
    
            sun.fi          yes     through a local service provider
                                    mail included
                                    www included
    
            hp.fi           no      (what happens, when they have their
    				    Internet-business plans in full speed? They
    				    haven't been very much seen there yet.)
    
            andersen.fi     yes     through a local service provider
                                    mail included
                                    www ? (didn't check)
    
            icl.fi          yes
                                    mail included
                                    www ? (didn't check, but propably yes)
    
            Tietotehdas     yes     (Tietotehdas is a major (largest?) SI
    				    and services house. They are among other 
    				    things a SUN VAR)
                                    mail included
                                    www included
    
            All major PC resellers have their own web-service
    
            All our Internet business competitors have their own
    	    Internet-connections
    
    --Ritva 

    re .0:
    
    �Does anyone else have the feeling that the relatively reliable
    �computing infrastructure that has made us so productive as a company is
    �crumbling around our very feet?
    
    Yes.
    
    I'm in Munich, Germany. Right now when I'm writing this (at about 11 AM
    Monday morning local time) the network is extremely slow - just opening
    a notesfile located in the US (like this one) takes in the order of one
    minute.
    
    The Palo Alto WWW proxy is not reachable.
    
    Also, it seems to take longer and longer before problems are fixed. If
    there is something wrong in the US when I come to work in the morning,
    I can not expect it to be fixed before people over there come to work
    (and we have 9 hours time difference to US West coast).
    
    And to make things clear, I am in no way trying to offend anyone
    involved in supporting our infrastructure (often beside their 'real'
    job) - it's not their faiult if the company doesn't fund enough people,
    training, equipment etc.
    

    I share the same feeling expressed in .0
    
    I was just cleaning my m...ail boxes this morning and I found an 
    annoucement from last November about a project named FEW for MCS. 
    I especially liked the statement which starts with "WE HAVE SPENT
    MONEY...

     I do not know if FEW (Future Electronic Workplace) is the solution, 
     I do not know if one BU doing this alone is the solution, 
     but I fully agree with the diagnostic we spent money but did not invest
     A extract of the text:

>With FEW, we are making an investment in infrastructure. PCs are not new in
>MCS; more than 10,000 are already deployed. However, the existing base is a
>haphazard mixture of hardware and software. We have spent money, but we
>have not made an investment and we have not built a foundation that can be
>used to fundamentally improve our productivity. As a result, each new
>business initiative is approached in an idiosyncratic fashion, the same
>problems are solved in a myriad of different ways. The lack of a uniform,
>well-defined infrastructure means that enterprise solutions are (at best)
>difficult and often impossible to implement. As a result, we are forced to
>rely on our own expertise to develop - at great expense - custom solutions;
>we are not able to effectively take advantage of standard commercial
>products or of new developmental technologies that allow rapid, and often
>code-free, solutions.

	but...

>FEW, on the other hand, fundamentally improves our
>working environment and provides the foundation necessary to respond to a
>changing market in a fast, efficient manner.

	however...

>The standard FEW desktop includes an Internet browser. Although the
>Internet is fundamental to the modern desktop, the initial FEW work will
>not include specific initiatives aimed at Internet.
        and...
>Video Conferencing is not currently part of the FEW project.

    I do not wish to be the voice of dissent, but Digital employees
    have been in the dark ages for too long.
    
    In the computer industry today the weak and timid die quickly and 
    the strong and agressive win.  I have been at Digital for a very
    short time and have gotten everything I have "asked" for to do my
    job affectively.  If you don't ask yopu won't get.  Anyone today
    that expects to be spoon fed may as well retire now.
    
    I will respectfully say that, yes I see the slow response on some
    servers, I also see that the large company mentality is hurting,
    but this is large company and our competitors are also large
    companies.  Improvement does not happen overnight and change must
    come from the outside by the insertion of new blood into the equation.
    
    Technology alone does not solve problems. As a matter of course,
    unstructured technology growth causes more problems than it fixes.
    This is due to the improper use and implementation of this technology.
    FAX machines vs fax servers, LAN vs WAN, NT vs UNIX.  This planning
    takes backbone and a understanding of the internal Digital customers.
    Without this plan and understanding, the pocket word procesor and a
    single line telephone works better.
    
    I realize this conference is for an exchange of ideas and thoughts but
    heres mine, "Don't complain about something unless you have presented
    a detailed plan that is far reaching and bold".  Without this plan all
    these comment amount to wineing.    

   re: <<< Note 4349.10 by JULIET::SMITH_P >>>

>    I realize this conference is for an exchange of ideas and thoughts but
>    heres mine, "Don't complain about something unless you have presented
>    a detailed plan that is far reaching and bold".  Without this plan all
>    these comment amount to wineing.    

    I disagee with this view.  Not wanting to hear complaints from someone 
    unless they have detailed plans is like not wanting to hear from someone
    that the building is on fire unless they have a sprinkler system in their
    back pocket.  I don't the the people who are complaining about the state
    of the infrastructure are whining.  I think they are raising the alarm.
    I believe that in this time of reduced resources in Digital, the squeaky 
    wheels will get the grease.  If no one complains, with or without a 
    detailed plan, then the people making the decisions that affect the 
    infrastructure can truthfully proclaim that they cut costs with no impact
    to the business.  The people complaining are reporting the impact.  It 
    isn't whining.  It's valuable feedback.

    Reply to 4349.11
    
    Where as I do very much agree this conference allows for a healthy
    outpouring on any issue ther is a great deal of difference between a
    burning building and a business issue.  One requires and immediate
    action without complaint (Burning building), the other requires at
    least some thought to facilitate a corrective action.   I do agree that
    I may have been harsh with my choice of words and spelling in
    "whining".  We all do have the right to complain if we vote.  And of
    course since we are the customer to the technology we are always right.
    
    Regards,
    Paul

with .10

This company has reinvented itself...everywhere but IT infrastructure...

Take a look around...DECstations, DECpc 433w with defunct video adapters,
vt's...tandy 386's...old VAXclusters...old proprietary tools like notes
and vtx and elf and 'home grown this and home grown that'...no network
management tools...etc. etc. etc.

Our entire product line has been re-engineered, but our infrastructre is
*old*...and now that all spending is BU independent, people are just creating
there own pockets of updated technology, adding to the web of disparate
unrealted patched together technology....we are creating a corporate network
nightmare.

Without a corporate inititative, independant of the BU spending model...
this will only get worse.

We will grind to a very slow, un-productive pace.

Get used to it.

-Stephen

    Reply .13
    
    Okay, so what is the solution, watching the degradation of the system
    as a whole but letting industrious individuals succeed inspite of the
    system.  I am not an old technology lover and obviously Digital as a
    company must upgrade or die.  If people are not satisfied with the
    performance and reliability of the technology, we must propose a
    solution to the appropriate people.
    
    Who are these people and why are they not listening?  If they are
    listening, what are the roadblocks to success?  I cannot beleive it is
    just money.
    
    Regards,
    Paul

Re: SMITH_P,

my comments are intended not to be just an outpouring of moans and whines 
(although maybe it makes me feel better! :), but serious comments from someone 
who has to put up with inadequate infrastructure in the hope that they'll get 
back to someone with sufficient influence and who cares a bit about the 
company to change things.  We have serious problems within the organisation of 
severe networking problems, major IS processing centres with insufficient 
resource to allow people to work quickly and reliably, seriously out of date 
and out of sync information, poor cooperation between organisational units, to 
name but a few.  All of these are caused by some extent to insufficient 
funding, and any one of them could (and do) cause the company severe problems. 
They all need to be addressed urgently, and investment needs to be made.

Chris.

in re .10:

|    I have been at Digital for a very
|    short time and have gotten everything I have "asked" for to do my
|    job affectively.  If you don't ask yopu won't get.  Anyone today
|    that expects to be spoon fed may as well retire now.

I think chances are that since your group could afford to hire you,
they can also afford to supply you with the gear that you need. A lot
of groups in this company cannot even backfill key resources leaving,
never mind keep systems working. It appears as if the infrastructure
is being run to the ground in groups of non-strategic importance. I
take it you did not ask your manager for a decent infrastructure in
Digital :-)

|    Technology alone does not solve problems. As a matter of course,
|    unstructured technology growth causes more problems than it fixes.
|    This is due to the improper use and implementation of this
|    technology.
|    FAX machines vs fax servers, LAN vs WAN, NT vs UNIX.  This planning
|    takes backbone and a understanding of the internal Digital customers.
|    Without this plan and understanding, the pocket word procesor and a
|    single line telephone works better.

I don't think we're looking for technology. We've had technology to offer
a decent infrastructure for a decade. We've had real networking, 24x365
systems, distributed printers, what have you .. many of us are not looking
for new technology. We are simply looking to repair what broke, due to
lack of attention, and mad cutbacks in staffing. Can you believe that
at the former leader of office automation you cannot reliably mail
someone a word document? How many of you out there are willing to say that
95% of your normal print-jobs actually come out without paper jam, black
spots, sideway streaks, transparent vertical columns or complete mysterious
loss to a black hole. It is not because we do not understand networking that
the performance leaves a few things to be desired. Sure, things need to be
renewed a bit. But it is not the OLD stuff per se that broke. 

|    I realize this conference is for an exchange of ideas and thoughts but
|    heres mine, "Don't complain about something unless you have presented
|    a detailed plan that is far reaching and bold".  Without this plan all
|    these comment amount to wineing.    

Don't be so quick to pass judgement if you're new in town. This is a very
big company, with a fair amount of history. Just because things are done
one way in your group does not mean that it is done like that anywhere but
in your group.

>Per

    Reply .16
    
    If you read my later responses, I definitely have softened my tone,
    which obviously offended you.  My intent was not to offend but to state
    an observation.  Please do not assume that I have not worked for a big
    company.  This would be a mistake as I have worked for a 24B
    Corporation and understand the "BIG" attitude.  This attitude should
    not be used as a excuse or justification.  Digital is suffering form
    the cost cutbacks of all "BIG" computer companies that came from the
    OLD school.  The OLD attitude was work for a "BIG" company and retire
    with the "BIG" company.  This attitude created a lazy mind in most
    companies since there was no threat of retribution.  In other words "as
    long as I show up and attempt to do my job you can't fire me...".  I
    have not experienced this first hand at Digital but I am sure it "did"
    exist at one time.
    
    I hope that we all can be patient and assist Digital in improving the
    very important infrastructure to perform as an industry leader.
    
    Regards,
    Paul

    You folks can actually *print* something?! I'd be happy just to go back
    to the "old" days when we at least got streaky printouts! I'm a tech.
    writer who hasn't been able to print a whole lot of anything for close
    to two weeks now (and I've been asking for months for new printers!
    Ours are just plum worn out).
    
    I offered to build a shrine to my manager which seems to have caught
    her attention :-)
    
    cheers,
    joan
    
    
    

This isn't to do with underfunded hardware, but it is an example of another 
erosion of the company's infrastructure because of lack of cooperation between 
cost centres.  I can see that this will really do the company a lot of good.
(I assume it's okay to post this memo as it seems to have unrestricted 
distribution?)

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     08-Jan-1996 07:27pm GMT
                                        From:     The IS Help Desk Account
                                                  HELPDESK
                                        Dept:     I.S.
                                        Tel No:   (7)851 3030

TO:  All ALL-IN-1 users on this node      ( SUBSCRIBERS: )

Subject: Mail from UK PM&S

    To:  All employees

    FM:  Property Management & Services

    SUBJECT:  SECURICOR PARCELS         DATE:   8th January 1996
 

    *********************************************************************


    To date all parcels shipped from DEC Park on Securicor have been funded
    by Theo Proudman's Cost Centre.

    It is therefore proposed that with effect from Tuesday 2nd January 1996
    Securicor will not collect from DEC Park.

    If individual cost centres wish to set up a daily collection then they
    will need to set up their own contracts with Securicor.  They will then
    also be billed direct by Securicor.

    The Securicor phone number will be 01865 778969.


    Thank you for your co-operation.



    Property Management & Services

    We call the row of LN03 Printers in our office "little Bosnia"....
    
    

I don't see the degradation in service that everyone is talking about.  

Now, before you jump on me with hideous examples of poor performance of 
systems, networks, etc, let me say that the keyword in that sentence is 
"degradation".

Degradation implies that it was better at some point in the past, and it
has gotten worse to the point where it is at today.

Some things have gotten better in the last few years: we have 28.8 dial-in
modems for the notebooks, we have the start of a distributed mail system 
which allows me to reach my customers from anywhere I happen to be (now if
we could only get MIME compatible mail we'd be all set), and we have a 
group of people dedicated to supporting those of us in the field with the
new equipment.

Some things have gotten worse in the last few years: many of our friends
are gone and we are paying external groups big bucks to do that which we
used to do very well ourselves (technical writing and training are two
examples, there are others), and the people who are left are stretched
so thin that we are unable to help out as we could in the past (which
reminds me of the conversation between the Red Queen and Alice, where
Alice said "But I am running as fast as I can and I am not getting ahead",
and the Red Queen said "Oh, you have to run as fast as you can just to
stay where you are: to move ahead you must run ever so much faster than
that...").

And some things have stayed the same: the ALL-IN-1 server which I use
has not had an un-scheduled failure in my memory, when I can't reach a
notesfile or some software distribution point I simply wait for a few
hours and it is almost always there, and there are still people around
who are committed to doing the right thing and who will help if you
ask politely and give them enough advance notice...

My point is that the things which we are complaining about are not unique
to Digital, they are endemic to the current business climate which exists
in the 90's (the causes of which are largely a matter of opinion and
political philosophy, and are beyond the subject of this note).  Dilbert
had a cartoon which showed his boss coming into Dilbert's cube, announcing
that Dilbert would no longer need to feel isolated in this small cube.
Dilbert was startled, and asked if he was getting an office.  His boss
said, "No, you are getting a cube-mate".  Dilbert wondered why he was
being forced to share a cube, since his company owned the entire building
and there were many empty cubes available.  His boss said that "My cost
center gets charged for floor space, and this is a way to save money".

Sound familiar?  This exact thing happened to me 3 years ago.  Now, either
Scott Adams was hiding in the next cube when it happened, or this exact
type of thing is common to many different companies today.  My bet is on
the latter.
    

The Greyhawk said it in .6:

>    	Welcome to the brave new world of re-engineering, rightsizing,
>    reorganization for profitability, etc.

All buzzwords applied to almost every company around the world today, 
and they all add up to the same thing: massive layoffs, many impressive 
presentations and articles about empowerment and doing more with less 
and working smarter not harder, and the people who are left (from the 
lowliest worker drone like myself all the way up to Bob Palmer) being 
squeezed in the process.  Some people get more money than others, but
we are all doing a lot more than we used to.


The examples of "working for cost center 7CQ, not Digital Equipment"
are legion.  My favorite is that the landing pad for tele-commuters
in the LAC office has 2 telephones and 2 VT220 terminals, both of which
are fuzzy and out of focus.  There is no Ethernet drop, and the terminals
hook to a server which requires 2 level of passwords in order to get to
a server which will allow you to $ SET HOST to you home system (and, of
course, no one near the landing pad knows the passwords, so those of us
who tele-commute are out-of-luck when we come to the LAC office).  When
I asked why this was, I was informed that it would have cost a specific
cost center some money to put an Ethernet drop in the landing pad, and
since no specific cost center owns the landing pad, ...  I solved that
problem quite easily: I un-hook one of the phones and plug it into my
notebook modem.  Fast, reliable, and very simple.


But that brings me to the point of this interminable reply: we all have
to find ways of doing our jobs, no matter what the obstacles.  Sometimes
those ways involve an end-run around the system (I try not to go to the LAC
office, and when I am forced to, I make sure to bring my modem cable), 
and sometimes these ways involve escalating the problems to your upper
management.  I have done both.  Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but
nobody ever said this would be easy.

Network slow?  Use FTSV.  Digital supplied software for FAXing totally
inadequate for your needs?  Spend your own $79 on WinFAX Pro.  No printers
in your area?  Put your file on a diskette, drive to your local Kinko's
and rent some computer time and printers, then turn in the bill.  And in
every case, *DOCUMENT IT*.  The extra time it took you, the extra money
it cost your cost center, the things which didn't get done because you
had to do all this extra stuff for this job, etc, etc.  And do it every
time you run into an obstacle to getting your job done.

By doing this you are giving your management definitive facts which they
can use to fight for the removal of these obstacles.  Most managers are
not like Dilbert's boss, who enjoys making his people suffer.  Most
managers are at least as frustrated as you are by the obstacles and
lack of helpful infrastructure.  So give them something to go to their
bosses with: not vague complaints about how slow the network is, but
"getting this proposal to the customer cost $140 at Kinko's because we
have no working printers" and "we had to hire 2 temporary people at a
cost of $x,xxx.00 and rent them PCs at a cost of $yyy.00 in order to
deliver the contract on time because our current equipment was broken",
etc, etc.

Feel free to vent in this notesfile about anything you want: it is a fun
activity and possibly relieves stress.  But don't fool yourself into
thinking that writing something in this (or any other) notesfile is in
any way going to solve the problem in the slightest little bit.  Upper
management may respond to solid business proposals with clearly defined
payback periods for the expenses you have listed: they will *never* respond
to venting and complaining in a notesfile.

-- Ken Moreau

    re: .10
    
    The other day our receptionist was trying to look something up in VTX
    and it was taking a long time.  She asked me why it was so slow.
    
    Well, let me tell you, I really laid into her!  I told here to never
    ever complain like that again unless she had a "detailed plan that was
    far reaching and bold".  I further told her that if she didn't like it
    she could be replaced by some new outside blood.
    
    She gave me a funny look and asked "How is it that I log on, again?".
    
    I, of course, replied "Forget about how to log on and go find the
    appropriate person to present your plan to!".

    
    I have seen many of the services we took for granted in hardware
    design evaporate over the last two years.  We have taken actions
    that have backfilled and allowed us to continue.  You need to push
    to get the required tools, services, materials, capital, etc funded.
    If it isn't visible that a past hidden cost needs to come above the
    line and get funded it won't ...  Push for the right thing to happen.
    
    Jon
    

Still, every single product that we sell has been redesigned
from the ground up.

FTSV?

Many of the customers I deal with have initiatives to KILL DECnet off
of their network!!

I certainly don't pretend to know how, but at some point we really need
to eat our own dogfood.

Right now, we are still eating the dogfood of a Digital that we used
to affectionatly call DEC.

Before I get laid into here...the only way I see this happening is with
some kind of 'top down' Corporate initiative, with funding.

Geez, it might be nice for all of those people supporting enVisn and
Multia's, UNIX Mailworks and NT Servers and Exchange...to actually use
these products on a day to day basis...

nnnnnaaaaaaahhhhhhhh...

-Stephen

    .22
    
    I think you totally missed my point, a question is not a complaint.
    To denegrate an employee is worse than listening to a complaint 
    without substance and relevent thought.
    
    You should be ashamed.

    >Can you believe that
    >at the former leader of office automation you cannot reliably mail
    >someone a word document?
    
    Or receive one either! :-) Just last night, one of the managers here in
    snow-bound Manahattan (yes, we've been here all weekend and through the
    blizzard working on a huge customer project) was trying to get a
    resume' from a project management type that we desperately need. She
    tried to fax it to him. No go. The fax machine on our end wouldn't
    answer the line. 
    
    So he asked her to mail it via the internet. She sent it from her
    America Online account. Somewhere along the way it got routed through
    his vaxmail account and forwarded to his All-In-One account. It arrived
    as uuencoded jiberish. So he comes in and asks me how he can read it.
    Let's see, first we gotta extract it to a file, download it to your
    PC's hard drive, then uudecode it. Ooops, I guess we'll have to
    download the uudecoder first, eh?
    
    It was much easier to just call the lady back, give her my personal
    America Online user name, and ask her to send the file to me as an
    e-mail attachment. In just a short time, I had a nicely formatted word
    document that auto-magically downloaded itself to my system when I read
    the message.
    
    There is some neat PC technology out there. Digital just hasn't figured
    out how to use it yet. :-(
    
    Harry
    

Of course, you could have uudecoded the file right on your OpenVMS system. If
you have UCX you have UUDECODE. (And if you're receiving Internet mail on an
OpenVMS system, there's a good chance you have UCX running).

just a helpful hint for the future...

cheers,

joan

    
    
    
    
    I suspect this is going to go on a bit, apologies to all.
    I have to agree, our infrastructure aint what it use to be.
    In many ways its better, in other ways its neglected. In some ways
    its not the technology that worries me, its the organisational and
    funding model that is currently portending further deterioration if
    people dont understand its implications for getting what needs to
    change altered. 
    
    Our Web connectivity is great, particularly compared to some of the
    other people I work with here.
    
    But for some Digital people this is just a dream. For those people, Altavista
    is not even on the horizon. Our VTX infrastructure (by this I dont mean
    VTX per se, but the organised information environment we had) is
    falling away. Many of the pages are not managed any more. The IR and
    Reader's Choice seem to have assumed a productive role however. Many
    things have transitioned to the Web. However, the information
    environment is in an active state of change.
    
    My dialin environment is much improved, but not without considerable
    interaction with my IS people. the service is patchy but they are doing
    EVERYTHING they can to provide a level of service to me. Its not
    exactly what I want but its a lot better than it was. BTW, the IS
    organisation is the SAME one that was mentioned earlier. They are not
    incompetents, most of those same people are generally excellent. They
    are caught in a new business model which appears to lay the blame at
    them when the funding model behind the scenes has altered the real
    responsibility.
    
    The new IS organisation relies on funding from the business units, and
    many of these BUs are not coughing up unless the benefit goes squarely
    to their resources only. So, in some ways, what we have is not
    understanding of the need for infrastructure to support communication
    "at the margin". This is corporate in nature. Its part of the reason
    that laptops get rolled out to part of the field (sales) (BTW, without
    a plan for continuous update and roll throughto current technology)
    while the consulting organisation lives with 386 mono-AST sourced jobs. Its
    why the MCS org make a decision on Microsoft based mail infrastructure.
    Its why consulting tools are there with no provision for interacton
    with the sales tools and a selling system that makes no provision for
    lead generation propogation into either the MCS or SI orgs. Its why bid
    centres that the whole branch use have their staff removed and we have
    to make do with LN03s which invariably cant handle the offloaded
    printing requirements. Its why opportunities for training get
    dispatched to those closest to management while talented people in
    branches miss out. Its why sales get their own modem pool and other
    parts of the organisation get the busy tone every time they dial in.
    its why the loan list seems to carry a lot of the infrastructure
    shortfall. Its not the sole reason for these things happening, however.
    
    Ken hit the nail on the head. We have to push our management on our
    needs. In this stovepipe funded company the IS organisation is pushed
    to meet the needs of those who pay. WE have to ensure that due
    importance is placed on our own stovepipes to ensure our needs are met
    and the cost of not meeting those needs is understood.The requirement 
    that cross-functional infrastructure is also supported must also be 
    stressed. This is currently not happening.
    
    Under this new world, some of the checks and balances developed over
    time in a more stable environ simply arnt there today. Things do fall
    through the cracks, the system is evolving, its not really architected.
    It is up to us all to realise where the holes are and point them out. I
    am not so worried about the discoverer having a solution, I'd rather
    the inadequacy be made apparent than nothing be done. And I think it
    behoves us to believe that all those about us are competent individuals
    doing the best they can. A little support and understanding of the
    environment and structure they are in they are in would not go astray.
    In many ways, the IS organisation is on a hiding to nothing in the
    present structure. They have done a poor job on user requirements in
    the past but today that role has been taken away by the Business Units
    funding capability directly. We need to push back up the chain so that 
    those that fund understand what we need. Otherwise, you'll continue to
    have a situation where your laptop is state of the art but your printer
    is state of the ark, where you shiny new web browser is never updated or
    the modem you have is 2400 baud with no plans for replacement till 1998.
    But, worst of all, where we develop systems which support the business
    unit but not the business in its totality. In sales terms, this is
    called leaving money on the table.
    
    If there is something wrong with your infrastructure, push your manager
    about it. If the problem is cross-functional, discuss it with your
    managers peers in the other business units. If you have a suggestion
    make it. Most managers will take an issue upwards if you insist (ask to
    be copied on message). Also, tell them what you need. We have had our
    printers replaced recently because one of the people here pulled
    himself out of the malaise of "our printers are rotten, arnt IS awful"
    and wrote a SOLID busineess case for getting them replaced. But as Ken 
    says, point out the cost of the current infrastructure to the business. 
    Also, mention in a forum like this does help. It is only through this 
    mechanism can a commonality of problem and need be guaged. It may also 
    prompt querying from above which will help get past the "no bad news 
    upwards" fraternity and may help you to understand what is necessary to
    make your case.
    
    Well, enough rambling.
    We've had the period of lying low so the bullet wont hit you. Now is
    the time to get up and ensure the infrastructure we need to be
    successful comes together. Stop sitting in the middle of the boat and
    get up and start rocking.
    
    - John
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    	This is truly what I love about Digital. We go from a newbie flame
    to technical problem with attendent help and back again without missing
    a beat...
    
    	Is this a great company, or what???
    
    
    		the Greyhawk

    Glad to help get it back on track.
    Just goes to show how helpful we all still are.
    
    Now if notes would allow ratholes to proceed down their own track we
    could continue with the discussion while they solve the UUENCODE
    dillema.
    
    Oh no, have I just commenced another rodent orifice? And my New Year's
    resolution was always to stick to the topic...
    
    
    - John

    My take on it is that the infrastructure of this company is not so much
    falling apart as it is falling behind. We're placing higher demands on
    our infrastructure, like being able to communicate to our customers via
    electronic mail, but at the same time we're reducing funds to either
    beef up what we have to support the higher demands, or implementing any
    new tools to increase our productivity.
    
    When we do try to implement new tools, we also seem to suffer from the
    dreaded NIH disease. Our site has attempted to use PathWorks as our
    primary infrastructure tool, and it has been simple dreadful. On the
    customer site I support, they use simple and cheap third-party tools
    to provide a much higher level of service to their users that just
    leaves me green with envy. Yet Digital is supposed to have both the
    products and the expertise to compete in this marketplace? Yah ...
    
    Geoff 

    
.30>    Now if notes would allow ratholes to proceed down their own track we
.30>    could continue with the discussion while they solve the UUENCODE
.30>    dillema.
    
    Oh you desperatly need to decode a uuencoded message huh?
    Sure can do... Have this snippet of code in my tools directory that 
    did the trick for me the other day. Dunno where I picked it up. 
    I'll include it at the end...
    
.30>    Oh no, have I just commenced another rodent orifice? And my New Year's
.30>    resolution was always to stick to the topic...
    
    Ooops now we've done it. Oh well. might as well finish it of.
    Check out your nearest VMS FREEWARE CD or try the following code..
    
    Cheers,
    	Hein.
    
/*
 * Uudecode -- decode a uuencoded file back to binary form.
 */

#include <stdio>

#define DEC(c)	(((c) - ' ') & 077)
main(argc, argv)
	int argc; char *argv[];
	{
	static  FILE *in, *out;
	int mode;
	char dest[128];
	char buf[80];
	/* optional input arg */
	if (argc > 1) {
		in = fopen(argv[1], "r");
		argv++; argc--;
		}
	else
		in = stdin;
	if (argc != 1) {
		fprintf(stderr, "Usage: UUDECODE [file]\n");
		exit(16);
		}
	/* search for header line */
	for (;;) {
		if (fgets(buf, sizeof buf, in) == NULL) {
			fprintf(stderr, "No begin line\n");
			exit(3);
			}
		if (strncmp(buf, "begin ", 6) == 0)
			break;
		}
	sscanf(buf, "begin %o %s", &mode, dest);
	out = fopen(dest, "w", "alq=240", "deq=120");  /* create output file */
	decode(in, out);
	fclose(out);
	if (fgets(buf, sizeof buf, in) == NULL || strcmp(buf, "end\n")) {
		fprintf(stderr, "No end line\n");
		exit(5);
		}
	}
/*
** copy from in to out, decoding as you go along.
*/
decode(in, out)
	FILE *in, *out;
	{
	char buf[80];
	char *bp;
	int n;
	for (;;) {
		if (fgets(buf, sizeof buf, in) == NULL) {
			fprintf(stderr, "Short file\n");
			break;
			}
		n = DEC(buf[0]);
		if (n <= 0)
			break;
		bp = &buf[1];
		while (n > 0) {
			outdec(bp, out, n);
			bp += 4;
			n -= 3;
			}
		}
	}

/*
** output a group of 3 bytes (4 input characters).
** the input chars are pointed to by p, they are to
** be output to file f.  n is used to tell us not to
** output all of them at the end of the file.
*/

outdec(p, f, n)
	char *p; FILE *f; int n;
	{
	int c1, c2, c3;
	c1 = DEC(*p) << 2 | DEC(p[1]) >> 4;
	c2 = DEC(p[1]) << 4 | DEC(p[2]) >> 2;
	c3 = DEC(p[2]) << 6 | DEC(p[3]);
	if (n >= 1)
		putc(c1, f);
	if (n >= 2)
		putc(c2, f);
	if (n >= 3)
		putc(c3, f);
	}


/* fr: like read but stdio */

int fr(fd, buf, cnt)
	FILE *fd; char *buf; int cnt;
	{
	int c, i;
	for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
		c = getc(fd);
		if (c == EOF)
			return(i);
		buf[i] = c;
		}
	return (cnt);
	}

/* If your library already has this function, use it and nuke the code below */

#ifdef noindex
/*
 * Return the ptr in sp at which the character c appears;
 * NULL if not found
 */

char *index(sp, c)
	register char *sp, c;
	{
	do {
		if (*sp == c)
			return(sp);
		} while (*sp++);
	return(NULL);
	}
#endif

re: .25

I think you're the one who missed the point.  I guess the writer of .22 needed 
to attach a "sarcasm"  face.

I agree with the crumbling infrastructure theme in large part.  I have two 
observations to add.

1. I remember a day (long long ago) when we were our own best reference 
site - I wouldn't dream of telling a customer what I.T. support we toil with 
today!

2. I would say most employees don't know how to use what they've got, or 
realise how good it still can be.

regards
Andrew

    I have been *YELLING* about the lack of infrastructure around this
    space ever since I was taken from the comfort of my former employer
    (via an OMS outsource).  By the time I joined DC/SI/??? (are we ABS
    yet, or is that some sort of plastic? ;^} ), it was late 1993, and
    I had just spent 4 years as part of a technical infrastructure team
    rolling out a 2000 seat Client/Server infrastructure (I was technical
    lead on the server architecture, both Novell and UNIX).  Prior to that,
    I had spent 5 years with the corporate folks in building coherent 
    centrally managed PC infrastructures, and supporting them as well
    (10000 seats world-wide).
    
    So, of course I was unceremoniously dumped into your standard cube with
    a VT320 for my efforts (and me, a PC jock of 11 years by that time).  I
    felt as if I had just stepped out of the "way-back" machine (Set the
    year for 1985 Sherman).  It took lots of yelling and whining, but I was
    FINALLY able to get a 425SL about 3 months later.  But what about file
    servers, workgroup S/W, group calendaring & scheduling, etc.??  My
    co-workers (or those who were still left standing) just shook their
    heads and laughed...
    
    Getting serious here for a minute - my biggest issue is the lack of an
    understanding of how important the infrastructure is to those of us in
    the front lines.  I will not go into the gory details, but I believe
    the two most serious problems are:
    
    -	Lack of PC Understanding / How to manage the PC infrastructure 
    	for 60K assorted heads is a serious problem.  Digital's focus
    	appeared to be on how to catch up in the manufacturing space, WHILE
    	TOTALLY IGNORING HOW TO CATCH UP IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL SPACE.
    	A lot of the problems I have witnessed (no asset management, making
    	dumb capital expense decisions based on stovepipes, no plans
    	or  people to manage the process at the desktop end, no ability
    	to have a way to refresh obsolete equipment, forcing PC nubie
    	Sales folks to purchase essentially undersized laptops that had
    	no hope of being adequately managed, and no focus at all by the 
    	corporate MIS folks on making this stuff work) have also been discussed
    	in this and earlier threads.  THEY ARE ALL ESSENTIALLY symptoms of
    	Digital's being stuck in a time warp while our customers and 
    	competitors spent years learning and using extensive PC-based 
    	infrastructures.  My previous employers as well as all my current
    	customers were working to solve all these issues for most of THE
    	PAST 10 YEARS; Digital has just gotten started on this front, 
    	AND IT IS GOING TO TAKE **SERIOUS** EFFORT TO MAKE THIS WORK.
    
    -	No Measurement of the Cost of Bad Infrastructure / In October '94,
    	my modest cube was sacrificed in the name of the "New Work
    	Environment".  New furniture was brought in, physical
    	infrastructure for networking (wiring and hubs) was put into place,
    	and I reduced my office "box count" (i.e., the number of boxes
    	my office stuff took up whenever I packed for a move) from 12 to 3.
    	I also setup a Home Office, a second phone line, the works.
    
    	My problem was no printer, no file server, and no ability to use
    	my laptop to replace being connected to EasyNET all the time.  
    	All this "New Work Environment" did not take into account how
    	I was supposed to work.  So it achieved its objective of reducing
    	costs per head for office infrastructure, BUT THE COST TO THE 
    	ORGANIZATION OF NOT HAVING A WORKABLE COMPUTING INFRASTRUCTURE
	FOR ME AND THE FOLKS LIKE ME WAS HUGE, AND NOT MEASURED AS A 
    	CONSEQUENCE OF POOR EXECUTION OF THE NEW WORK ENVIRONMENT.  I 
    	Yelled about this at the time; hey, I had just spent 8 WHOLE YEARS
    	rolling out large PC environments during times of rapid change;
    	what could I possibly know???  My comments fell on deaf ears ...       
    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here are what I see as the bottom line: 
    
    While PC-based computing is inherently expensive, committing
    $$$ to buy equipment without a plan for how to operate and
    manage this equipment is twice as expensive, because you spend
    the money, but do not see the benefit (worst of all possible
    outcomes).  I am beginning to see signs that some parts of the 
    organization are improving with this respect, even GPS.  BUT THE 
    KEY ISSUE IS THAT DIGITAL STILL HAS NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE
    NEED TO REENGINEER ITS COMPUTING INFRASTRUCTURE TO MATCH ITS OPERATIONAL 
    REQUIREMENTS.  I believe that until this is done from this viewpoint,
    we will continue to see a significant gap between what we need to
    achieve our goals (the business of Digital) and the infrastructure
    available.  WE WILL SEE SOME VERY GOOD PARTIAL SOLUTIONS - like the
    Sales Workbench - but if this only targets Sales, and SI has inadequate
    personal systems to do proper delivery, we are not going to achieve the
    enterprise-wide level of capability we need (as an example).
    
    Charles
           
  

The point about not realising the value of PC investments is well made.  
Poorly executed implementation of new technology is worse than no 
implementation.

One small example from my office - the new sales workbench brings great 
hardware to the finger-tips of the Sales folk - just a pity that they can't 
access the printers on the same physical network right beside them!!! The 
time these PC's take to boot from remote servers somewhere on the other 
side of EASYNET is laughable, and once connected, most of the promised 
sales workbench applications aren't there anyway.  So what was the point?

    What ...you expect the people who provide work facilities to take into
    account what you need to do your job?  Sorry they aren't measured on
    that, only how many square feet of space they require, so obviously the
    NWE was "a success" since we've dramatically reduced our floorspace
    requirements.
    
    ;^)

>Of course, you could have uudecoded the file right on your OpenVMS system. If
>you have UCX you have UUDECODE. (And if you're receiving Internet mail on an
>OpenVMS system, there's a good chance you have UCX running).

>just a helpful hint for the future...

    So, I spawned out to the DCL prompt and typed:

    HSOSS1 $ ucx
    UCX> uudecode
    %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling
     \UUDECODE\
    UCX> decode
    %CLI-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling
     \DECODE\
    UCX> help uudecode
      Sorry, no documentation on UUDECODE

    A helpful hint indeed. :-( I've spent the last 6 years as a PC support
    type. One of my most horrible experiences was (and remains to be)
    figuring out how to move files between Vaxen and PC's. Multiple file
    formats on the Vax side make such simple tasks miserable. Even
    Pathworks, our "PC Connectivity Software", puts files into a format
    that can't be successfully moved via modem to a PC without first
    massaging the file. Now I'm supposed to figure out how to first
    uudecode the file on the Vax, THEN convert the resulting file into the
    proper format, THEN download it to my PC? Hmmmm, I don't think many of
    our customers will be interested in such a useful "tool". :-(

    On my PC, I've got a wonderful piece of code (for free!) that came with
    my GNN internet access. If I try to read a message or newsgroup
    response that has been uuencoded, then the software intercepts it,
    decodes it and displays it in its original form.

    It is not difficult for me to decide which tool I would rather use. It
    isn't hard for our customers either. Keep in mind that most of us at
    Digital are extremely technical types. Most of our customers aren't.
    They don't want to type long command strings. They want to point and
    click, then see the results they expect appear on their screen.
    
    Re .32 Many thanks for the uudecode code. However, I just get lots of
    "No command on line" and "Unrecognized command verb" errors when I try
    to run it. My guess is that I'd have to learn how to compile code to
    actually be able to use that?
    
    Sorry folks. America Online provided a much easier solution than either
    of the two presented above. For TEN BUCKS A MONTH! No arcane commands,
    no errors, no file format mismatches. Just point and click and I had
    the resume' that I needed, still in Microsoft Word format.
    
    Hmmm, maybe we could replace GPS with AOL! It is MUCH easier to dial
    into AOL. If I've just travelled to a new city, I just click on "New
    local number". The program dials an 800 number, then asks me what area
    code I'm calling from. With that info, it is able to provide a list of
    LOCAL numbers that I can dial to access AOL. To dial into Digital I use
    my calling card to dial direct back to Texas. (Yeah, I know about WATN.
    It's an antiquated, unreliable and extremely S L O W form of
    communication.)
    
    The world around us is marching, no racing, ahead of us. The sad part
    is, Digital is helping them do it, but is not using the technology that
    we are installing for them! The cobblers kids have no shoes....
    
    Harry
    

    
    
    >  maybe we should replace GPS with AOL
    
      I take it you haven't called the AOL 'customer service'  line
    yet?  
    
      When you do so,  you should plan on holding for at least an
    hour (no exaggeration!)  with repeated reminders at 2 minute 
    intervals about just how important your call is to them...
    
    
    						-al
    

    But CIS was on in 15 seconds and walked me thru all the questions I has
    and actec like they were my friend and wanted to help. All this on New
    Years Day when everyone and his brother and sister were tyrying to set
    up their new PCs. I did not know the real problem when I called but the
    found the problem AND gave me an answer in rapid time.
    
    Howard
    
    BTW-I was encouraged to call back if I had any more questions!

re. 38

My apologies, a better explanation would be:

1. Add the following lines to your LOGIN.COM file

   $ UUENCODE == "$SYS$SYSTEM:UCX$UUENCODE.EXE"
   $ UUDECODE == "$SYS$SYSTEM:UCX$UUDECODE.EXE"

2. Re-run the login.com file. This defines your symbols. 

3. To decode a file, type UUDECODE <inputfile> 

I suspect that somewhere in the UCX documentation, these facilities are
explained. I never had any documentation.

cheers,

joan

    re .37
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note 4349.37       Is the Infrastructure Crumbling around us?    37 of 41
    TROOA::MSCHNEIDER "Digital has it NOW ... Again!"     7 lines 
    11-JAN-1996 09:17
                              -< metrics bite you again! >-
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        What ...you expect the people who provide work facilities to take
    into account what you need to do your job?  Sorry they aren't measured
    on that, only how many square feet of space they require, so obviously
    the NWE was "a success" since we've dramatically reduced our floorspace
    requirements.
        
    ;^)
    
    ...............................................................
    
    Yes, it was SUCH a success that my branch office is being downsized
    AGAIN starting this month.  I am sure that a 5-to-1 person to seat
    ratio will prove most beneficial to the floor space planners. 
    Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any better plan for logical
    computing infrastructure to go along with it.                        
                                  
    
    re: .36 -
    
    I too am wondering if the new and improved Sales Workbench will meet
    its objectives, or perhaps we still haven't learned how to do this
    right (I guess SNAP was not enough of a disaster, eh?).  
    
    For example, is there a plan to upgrade the Admin folks at the same
    time as the Sales laptops?  OR do I have to suffer having to work
    around their not being on the same S/W revision as us yet again.
    
    My Point here is not to just whine.  I KNOW this can be done right; 
    I have even done it myself.  We just need to have the folks in charge
    of this recognize the need to do this right, and not just half-@#$%@
    again.
    
    Charles

As the person who started this firestorm I can see that I am not alone.  I think 
much good could be done if we all just chanted over and over "the infrastructure's 
broken and needs to be fixed".  I really don't think many of the folks in a 
position to make strategic corporate IS investments really understand how 
profoundly this is true.

I think it is good that this issue gets elevated and addressed.  I also agree
that those in a position to push for something better at whatever level have a 
responsibility to do so.

Those of you who are new to Digital have some things to learn about this company.
First off, as Greyhawk noted this is a truly great company as companies go.  The 
very fact that we can have a global discussion of this issue is an example of that.
The disturbing part is that we were the best.  We know Networks.  We understand 
technology.  There are many people at Digital that understand PCs, Windows 95/NT 
and the Web and the technological new world order.  There are many inside and out 
that do not understand this.  We can fix this, whatever it takes. It just seems the 
corporate direction setters have chosen not to.

However, the company is at a crossroads.  Significant IS investments in 
non-evolutionary infrastructure must be put in place.  But more than money is 
needed.  We need a vision and a design for an infrastructure for the year 2000.  
And, it seems we need an equally bold change in the way the infrastructure 
organization is managed, measured and rewarded.   

I may be getting over my head here but perhaps the business units should propose to 
the Corporate CIO that he initiate a Infrastructure 2000 design project intended to 
meet their year 2000 needs.  The BU could supply the $ and a rep to approve of the 
plans.  The corporate function should then design a new world class infrastucture 
(perhaps with engineering input from Strecker et al) under the direction of the 
Business units...what a nice change.

MCS is making bold steps to improve its infrastructure along those lines with FEW 
as has been mentioned (Microsoft Exchange MAIL, Windows 95 clients and investing in 
getting people Microsoft certified).  But as many have pointed out this sort of 
thing must be corporate wide.  

At the core of the problem and its solution is our network.   We must have at least 
a 10 fold increase in effective capacity now and another significant increase by 
the year 2000.  We definitely have to can DECnet.  We must plan to transition off 
of VMS.  We must fundamentally change our business processes to make use of 
workflow and get rid of paper, delay, duplication and manhours.  We need a crusade 
to eliminate homegrown, poorly made business applications and replace them with 
world-class client-server or peer-peer solutions that are integrated. 

At a grass roots level one way to start is by having those who have successfully 
pushed for even minor infrastructure improvements to post their work (or a pointer 
to their work) here.  In this way others can benefit and perhaps get their corner 
of the world made just a little safer for the computing employee.

	Kim Mains

PS> I think it quaint that the UUENCODE/DECODE discussion resulted in a VMS based 
solution.  I haven't used VMS for more than a file server in so long this seems a 
real flash from the past.  Anyone with a nice simple Windows 95 Microsoft Exchange 
or at least Teamlinks solution?   

    .43
    It is very obvious you have thought about this problem for a long time
    and are able to articulate a viable solution that is usable and able to
    be implemented.  I hope this plan can be heard as it is very important
    to grow this organization in a positive way.
    
    Thanks for the intelligent point of view.   

RE .2
>    A lot of work is underway to design and develop a NT corporate wide
>    strategy.  
        
    I am interested to learn about this corporate wide strategy - 
    where can I find some information?
    
    Greg.
    
    p.s Received a Word document (as an attachment) the other day, by email. 
        This is what it looked like:
    
    Date:   10-Jan-1996
    Posted-date: 09-Jan-1996
    Unable to convert to ASCII data of type FOREIGN
    
    p.p.s Sorry - I know this was discussed before - just having a bit of
          'stress relief'. :-) (FWIW/FYI, the sender told me that the standard
          in their deparment is Teamlinks. Obviously, it's not the standard
          in our department at the moment). 

.43 rearranged for those of us who are still noting on 80 column character cell
environments ...


<<< Note 4349.43 by STOWOA::usm001.ogo.dec.com::Mains "Notes from a PC...never work!" >>>
                -< Every journey starts with one small step... >-

As the person who started this firestorm I can see that I am not alone.  I
think much good could be done if we all just chanted over and over "the
infrastructure's broken and needs to be fixed".  I really don't think many of
the folks in a position to make strategic corporate IS investments really
understand how profoundly this is true.

I think it is good that this issue gets elevated and addressed.  I also agree
that those in a position to push for something better at whatever level have a
responsibility to do so.

Those of you who are new to Digital have some things to learn about this
company.  First off, as Greyhawk noted this is a truly great company as
companies go.  The very fact that we can have a global discussion of this issue
is an example of that.  The disturbing part is that we were the best.  We know
Networks.  We understand technology.  There are many people at Digital that
understand PCs, Windows 95/NT and the Web and the technological new world
order.  There are many inside and out that do not understand this.  We can fix
this, whatever it takes. It just seems the corporate direction setters have
chosen not to.

However, the company is at a crossroads.  Significant IS investments in
non-evolutionary infrastructure must be put in place.  But more than money is
needed.  We need a vision and a design for an infrastructure for the year 2000.
And, it seems we need an equally bold change in the way the infrastructure
organization is managed, measured and rewarded.   

I may be getting over my head here but perhaps the business units should
propose to the Corporate CIO that he initiate a Infrastructure 2000 design
project intended to meet their year 2000 needs.  The BU could supply the $ and
a rep to approve of the plans.  The corporate function should then design a new
world class infrastucture (perhaps with engineering input from Strecker et al)
under the direction of the Business units...what a nice change.

MCS is making bold steps to improve its infrastructure along those lines with
FEW as has been mentioned (Microsoft Exchange MAIL, Windows 95 clients and
investing in getting people Microsoft certified).  But as many have pointed out
this sort of thing must be corporate wide.  

At the core of the problem and its solution is our network.   We must have at
least a 10 fold increase in effective capacity now and another significant
increase by the year 2000.  We definitely have to can DECnet.  We must plan to
transition off of VMS.  We must fundamentally change our business processes to
make use of workflow and get rid of paper, delay, duplication and manhours.  We
need a crusade to eliminate homegrown, poorly made business applications and
replace them with world-class client-server or peer-peer solutions that are
integrated. 

At a grass roots level one way to start is by having those who have
successfully pushed for even minor infrastructure improvements to post their
work (or a pointer to their work) here.  In this way others can benefit and
perhaps get their corner of the world made just a little safer for the
computing employee.

	Kim Mains

PS> I think it quaint that the UUENCODE/DECODE discussion resulted in a VMS
based solution.  I haven't used VMS for more than a file server in so long this
seems a real flash from the past.  Anyone with a nice simple Windows 95
Microsoft Exchange or at least Teamlinks solution?   

    
    	Nice note, Kim - this should be sitting on RP's desk...
    
    	I, too, think it is ridiculous that  our network topology and "at
    desk" tools are 1970s based. It creates a bias, and an unwillingness
    to change (the old comfort factor), towards technologies that are
    	"out of the mainstream"
    
    	Sitting here typing across Telnet into a VMS server in Florida
    is slow to say the least. But that I cannot use the same tools my
    customer's themsevles are buying from us is crazy. It is also very
    stupid.
    
    	Time to change, Digital, spend money on a nice tight integrated
    infrastructure based on Windows, Windows NT, and a singular data
    warehouse structure WORLDWIDE; and this sales guy will be happy.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
     Hey,
    
     I beg to differ on this infastructure thingy. I say some parts are old
    but *not* all. I say some people are misinformed, but *not* all. I say
    somethings have not changed, but *not* all.
    
     The tools I use are mainstream in your face from the Network, who
    cares where on the network, who cares what on the network technology. The
    intranet is emerging as a viable tool for my day to day existance. The
    internet is available via point and click. My E-Mail interface comes to
    me in so many flavors, I don't have and excuse *not* to read my mail.
    And, OBTW, other applications are following this lead. Without loss of
    historical or archived data. It is a new GUI based on new toolsets
    based on new minds based on old data.
    
     So what if my phone bill is outrageous, hey they have a tool for that
    too.
    
     Sorry, but some of the pieces are there in some of the places. Change
    *is* happening. We use what we sell... and what our customers want.
    
    -Later.
    
    Mike Z.

    We know it's possible, that's what makes the lack of visible widespread
    progress so frustrating.
    
    In the UK (as elsewhere) there has been a big push for "mobile
    working", working from home, flexible working, etc. The first half
    dozen or so people involved in this were a showcase outfit. They got
    everything they needed, and are still the public face of Digital UK
    when we want to pretend we do flexible working. The rest of us who were
    railroaded into mobile working don't get anything hi tech, don't get
    any finance from HQ, don't get any help from I.S, generally have to do
    everything for ourselves without spending any money and without the
    help of other parts of the company.
    
    However you look at it, the infrastructure in general is indeed broken.
    
    see ya
    john

>    In the UK (as elsewhere) there has been a big push for "mobile
>    working", working from home, flexible working, etc. The first half
>    dozen or so people involved in this were a showcase outfit. They got
>    everything they needed, and are still the public face of Digital UK
>    when we want to pretend we do flexible working. The rest of us who were
>    railroaded into mobile working don't get anything hi tech, don't get
>    any finance from HQ, don't get any help from I.S, generally have to do
>    everything for ourselves without spending any money and without the
>    help of other parts of the company.

I guess I'm one of the first half dozen, but it wasn't a smooth ride trying to 
get the necessary equipment.  My PC was acquired from a discontinued project, 
the workstation was rescued from the recycler, and trying to get the network 
infrastructure in place took months of negotiation (read `arguing', `arm 
twisting', `shouting at people', etc)  Fortunately, a couple of helpful 
managers signed off some of the other bits of kit once things were underway, 
such as a printer and fax machine.

I'm still not sure where the finance for the leased line used for network 
connection comes from, but I'm not going to ask too loudly (!), and we don't 
have any official support for keeping the thing going; it's taken over a year 
to get the connection to operate with any degree of reliability.

I still think I'm lucky that I was in a position to (albeit eventually) 
warrant some spending to get the infrastructure in place, many others who're 
in a similar position are still using 386 based PCs and 2400 baud modems.

No doubt Alan could also give some interesting insights...

Chris.

    Well, it's Monday morning in Europe, and the PA WWW proxy is
    unreachable again (as so often after the weekend).
    
    I've been doing lots of proposals, concept papers etc. for customers
    lately and need to intensively use the Web to collect information (I
    don't really know how one could do it in the pre-Web times!).
    
    Anyway, I'll probably have to wait until it's morning on the West
    coast... meaning I'll be gone home.
    
    Fortunately, the CRL gateway still works.
    
    

If you're using Netscape 2.0 (beta versions OK), create a file like this,
call it proxy-config.pac, and enter it in the proxy configuration.  It will
automatically fail over to the other server when one is unreachable.

    function FindProxyForURL(url, host)
    {
        if (isPlainHostName(host) ||
            dnsDomainIs(host, ".dec.com"))
            return "DIRECT";
        else
            return "PROXY www-proxy.crl.dec.com:8080;
		PROXY www-proxy.pa.dec.com:8080";

    }

    Thanks for the tip, John... this will save some headache, I hope.
    
    

re .52,

where abouts in the options bit do you put the file?  I tried putting it in 
the URL bit (didn't seem that appropriate, but I couldn't see anything more 
obvious) and it wouldn't load it.

Chris.

PS what's with the gateways?  I'm having real severe problems contacting 
either the PA or CRL ones at the moment.

re Note 4349.54 by CBHVAX::CBH:

> re .52,
> 
> where abouts in the options bit do you put the file?  I tried putting it in 
> the URL bit (didn't seem that appropriate, but I couldn't see anything more 
> obvious) and it wouldn't load it.
  
        Under Options...Networks...Proxies one choice is Automatic
        Proxy Configuration -- most likely you would put the code in
        .52 into a local file and place a file: URL as the value of
        the URL for this option (e.g., file:///C|/netscape/name.pac).

        (This only works in the later betas of Netscape V2.0.)

        Bob

re .55

Correct.  Your file specification syntax on Windows may vary, but I have
specified:

	file:///Macintosh HD/Netscape/Plug-ins/proxy-config.pac

I'm not sure "Plug-ins" was the best place to put it, but it's there for now.

The idea is for your network administrator to provide one of these that
everyone can use, but I don't like that because it makes odd things happen
if I want to use Netscape while not connected to the normal network and
for a number of other reasons not worth discussing here

/john

    While trying to not get pulled into various rat holes, let me say a few
    things about what is happening in the area of infrastructure today.
    
    At the desktop level, the devices (PC, workstation, whatever) are
    controlled by your managment.  While the user and the provider may not
    agree on the suitability of those devices for performing work, the
    belief is that they are best able to judge what is needed and to pay
    for it.  
    
    At the next level you have communications, whether in a traditional
    building or 'mobile'.  In the past, in building wiring changes have
    only been done as part of build new or retrofit project.  And that
    generally included terminal wiring and thin wire ethernet.  We are now
    seeing twisted -pair ethernet being requested to go into some of the
    larger engineering facilities.  Expect to see more of that on a
    facility basis.
    
    The company is rapidly implementing an NT infrastructre and you should
    see new service announcements this quarter.  Expect WINS/DHCP and RAS
    in sites with over 50 employees.  A domain structure has already been
    designed and is being implemented at this time.  Additional services
    will be provided as they are ready.  I should note that this is
    world-wide in implementation with exact dates being set locally.  Also,
    smaller sites will get the same services at a later date if they can't
    use the services via another site.
    
    If the rate of change has been too slow in the past, I expect many will
    feel the opposite soon as VTX, Notes, VMSmail, ALL-IN-1, etc. all
    become distant memories when replaced by Web pages, Microsoft Exchange,
    etc.
    
    Your milage may vary on local implementation dates due to the usual
    issues, but they are coming.

    
    > A domain structure has already been designed and is
    >  being implemented...
    
      ER, um  here at ZKO,  there are already many domains which
    have sprung up without any centralized encoragement.  If
    there's some sort of master strategy being cooked up,  it had
    better be made very public, very quickly,  or it's doomed
    to be just more roadkill on the info superhighway...
    
    
    				-al

>      ER, um  here at ZKO,  there are already many domains which
>    have sprung up without any centralized encoragement.  If
>    there's some sort of master strategy being cooked up,  it had
>    better be made very public, very quickly,  or it's doomed
>    to be just more roadkill on the info superhighway...

I think every site I've been to already has its own eclectic assortment of 
domains and workgroups that have materialised over the years, trying to 
consolidate that lot may prove an interesting exercise!

Chris.

    Isn't it a grand scheme though?
    
    Here you have lots of people complaining about lack of adequate tools
    and one of the responses back is - yeah - we're going to help you out
    by making you change your domains.
    
    Some things are just easier to manage than others.  New projects fit
    into that category nicely.  And "management" gets to prove that they
    are doing something.
    

re: .59

We got given our "offical domain name" and after 2 months we are 
STILL re-installing WNT Boxes to the new name.. 

Oh the joy..

NOT!!