DX Infrastructure Manager

Expand all | Collapse all

Disappointing 'downgrade' from UMP 8.51 to 20.3 OC

  • 1.  Disappointing 'downgrade' from UMP 8.51 to 20.3 OC

    Posted 24 days ago
    Broadcom have known about the Flash issue for the last few years. To release a replacement 2-3 months from Flash EOL is not only risky but puts us as suppliers in a very uncomfortable position with our own customers. There is a lot missing from the new OC and it in my mind has nowhere near the same feature set we had with the old UMP. For me its a 'downgrade' and now we have to explain to our customers that they now need to wait weeks/months/years for Broadcom to plug the gaps! Embarrisngly we have have now had to produce a document to give to our customers to tell then what is missing in the 'front end', and with little or no workarounds in some cases. One day someone will use this as a business case, seeing how large corporates can literally destroy a product. Gone are the 'old days' from around 2004 where we had Nimsoft in Norway with such a formidable product. Thats my 'vent' for today ....

  • 2.  RE: Disappointing 'downgrade' from UMP 8.51 to 20.3 OC

    Posted 23 days ago
    Edited by FERNANDO ELIAS GARCIA 23 days ago

    As a UIM user and provider, I look with concern at this topic; We Installed 20.3 in the test environment and I see many loose ends;

    I wonder if there is any WA to continue using the FLASH version in 20.1 or on the contrary not update my version until the horizon is clearer I wonder if there is any WA to continue using the FLASH version in 20.1 for example, or on the contrary not update my version 8.5.1 until the horizon will be clearer.

    I think there are some WA from most popular browsers to continue using Flash after December 2020 in local websites, maybe this is the least risky option.



  • 3.  RE: Disappointing 'downgrade' from UMP 8.51 to 20.3 OC

    Broadcom Employee
    Posted 23 days ago
    Block browser updates.
    The flash not working is in the browser and not UIM.

    Support Engineer

  • 4.  RE: Disappointing 'downgrade' from UMP 8.51 to 20.3 OC

    Posted 17 days ago

    Unfortunately most service providers won't have the option of locking our customers into an old browser version. I'm guessing most also won't have much insight into the browser update policies of their customers, which leaves a tremendous amount of uncertainty. I've been wondering myself how much of a cushion we might actually have, but I'm guessing it's not much.


  • 5.  RE: Disappointing 'downgrade' from UMP 8.51 to 20.3 OC

    Posted 12 days ago
    You must be joking - asking customers to "Block browser updates"
    Which sensible IT company or service provider would do that?
    Would Broadcom internal security team allow this for their employees - block browser updates?

    We asked for our SOE and Security teams about keeping browsers to the current release and leaving the Flash plug-ins in-place when we found out about all the gaps in the 20.3 release but they refused POINT blank. Said it was an applications issue and we had to fix it.
    And like so many other posts in this thread - we have to now go and create a new set of documentation for our users on OC AND Explain why they cannot use many of the features that they had taken for granted in the 9.x releases.

    I have just read the release notes of the 20.3.1 update and it doesn't fill with me with any confidence (not tested it yet)
    But based on the published release notes all the UI related known issues that we were concerned about are still unresolved

    - users cannot change their own passwords
    - OC does not timeout
    - we cannot see details of maintenance for a robot under the robot details view (eg. is it currently under maintenance? what is the schedule name? what other maintenance schedules have been configured for this robot? what are the start and end times? etc.)

    As Brendan Mitchell pointed out, Broadcom is publishing a new release 2 months before the Flash plug-in support ends and expects customers to just "downgrade" their release without any other recourse.

  • 6.  RE: Disappointing 'downgrade' from UMP 8.51 to 20.3 OC

    Posted 23 days ago
    Edited by Matthias Gruber 23 days ago
    Hi Brendan!
    I am sharing your opinion on 10000 Percent!
    We startet with Nimsoft nearly on the same time, because it was an excellent product, now see what is happening, a blown construct. With a company in charge which has no experience in managing solftware  or even programming in time. Simply underestimate the problem of removing flash and switch from UMP to OC.
    OC is sooo far behind the USM with less of functionality and bad userexperience. Yesterday I presented it to our Operating, and they asked how much time they have to seek for a new job till I make the update.
    I think the 20.3 is like the old 7.x-Version of UIM.... only a bunch of fixes, which looks nice on presentations but not in "real life" ;-)
    Well, we propably goint to keep the 8,51, or for god sake, the 20.1 there seems not sooo much damage in it, like in 20.3, and have a look where Carstein Seeberg is now working (well I know it, but propably if I post the Company I got banned) :-)
    Perhaps it is only a great plan to force customers to AIOps, but let me tell we use also UC4/Automic for aprox 20 years...hahahh dont ask the admins how happy they are you will get punished.
    This are my 2 cents :-)

  • 7.  RE: Disappointing 'downgrade' from UMP 8.51 to 20.3 OC

    Posted 17 days ago
    Hi all,

    to me one of the biggest fails is that I can't populate groups with devices based on several filters and boolean algebra.
    Now I can search devices only by name or IP.
    Also loading groups it the default tree view in incredible slow, this view is useless now and you can't change default view.