In a recent interview with Computerworld Espana, Alfredo Fernandez Moya, networking director for IBM Espana SA, acknowledged that the considerable attention being devoted by the principal information technology players to developing management systems for distributed environments was clearly motivated by significant deficiencies in client-server architectures. Distributed environment costs are simply exorbitant, Moya commented. He cited various unidentified studies that have controversially concluded that final costs, which included the sum of labour costs, the time required by users to learn to operate their own system, and the actual cost of the product in terms of hardware and software, far exceed those incurred with the classic mainframe system. Of IBM’s answer to the problem, Moya claimed SystemView has emerged to confront the shortcomings of client-server architecture.
Panacea
Before, NetView provided a perfect solution in centralised environments, providing information about the system from any point in the network. But problems have arisen with distributed architectures, the deficiencies of client-server working are becoming increasingly apparent, and it is only now that realistic solutions are beginning to be seen. Our own Open Client-Server group at IBM Corp has come to the conclusion that you cannot bring in a client-server system without a management solution. Moya described client-server architecture as a bomb which has gone off in users’ hands: It had been seen as a panacea for cutting costs, but many unforeseen factors have subsequently cropped up and what users lacked in applications they had to make up for with labour. Ultimately the client throws the ball back into the court of the manufacturer, who then has to come up with a solution, Moya observed. He went on to claim that without a solution such as SystemView, the client-server user was left totally exposed to even the smallest of problems. Moya believes many suppliers try to offer the client their particular product, since they have no other: The difference with IBM is that we ask clients what solution they want, and that is the one they get. We adapt to the needs of the client, rather than condition the client to our solutions. He said the ultimate aim of SystemView was to offer a series of functional management tools that were independent of the system. When asked about IBM’s relationship with Tivoli Systems Inc, Moya said that although some agreements had been signed, he was unable to confirm whether Tivoli’s object technology would be incorporated into SystemView. When it came to measuring the degree to which IBM’s systems management offering was capable of cutting costs, Moya baulked at venturing a figure, but suggested savings were significant.
