The licensing tool is *very* limited in what you can do. Also, it seems limited on the admin side. For instance: for some reason, after 20 plus years, our licensing physical address was changed because our vendor did not pay attention to our site number, which has not changed in forever. Our physical address changed in May of 2000, but the change was never reflected on the entitlement side for some reason. This year, our vendor referenced our correct physical address for the first time (I guess). Since Entitlement did not have the address , a *new* site was created, and our entitlements were shifted to the new site. The problem was that nobody in our organization had access to the new site, so we could not get our Groupwise license renewed by our system. MF apparently did not think that customers might move physically, so they don't seem to have a mechanism for "updating". Our GW license expired, and we had to get MR. Bills involved to get the issue resolved. Over 2 weeks to resolve!.
by: Bruce P. | over a year ago | Other
Comments
I agree entirely. This process is very limited. Especially considering the other obstacles to keeping GW from being replaced.
Same here, you can´t choose, from which account you request license. If you are admin for multiple customers, there is no go.
Second problem is lack of proxy support.
The whole idea is broken, and it's design even moreso. That you can't chose the organization from the customer center to use is one thing. The inability of Novell/MicroFocus, the company that has invented IDM, to maintain a remotely sane database of it's customers another.
But let's just look at GMS. It now wants to check the license via the GW admin interface. Let it sink in. A Service which naturally lives in a DMZ for security reasons needs access to *the* central administration interface of the email system. Talk about a security nightmare by design. The lack of thought that has been applied to this whole new licensing idea is mindblowing.