<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003> </SPAN>Our company is looking to
transition away from our current issue tracking system. I've been hesitant to
evaluate RT because of its reputation for a difficult install and
configuration... <SPAN class=144303719-03122003><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003>RT is a dead easy install if you follow a few
guidelines:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003>- follow the directions. When they say
"unsupported" understand that to mean "there have been problems reported which
will result in trouble". Specifically, if you use mod_perl use 1.x instead
of 2.x, and do not use any perl earlier than 5.8.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003>(Ok, I ran out of guidelines... That about covers
it!)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003> </SPAN>That and lack of developer
documentation for the current release. I have the time to do a vanilla
install, but not necessarily to wade in and grok the code. However, a vanilla
install isn't going to give me an overview of the schema, internals,
extensibility, etc. I.e., what we as a customer would have to look forward to
and live with if the vanilla install looks promising. <SPAN
class=144303719-03122003><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial
size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003>Grokking the internals is not necessary if
you are just planning on using it. The interfaces are reasonably clear, it
is full-featured, exceptionally custimizable via gui interfaces, and basically
"works out of the box". The install directions are perfectly
adequate for people willing to read them.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial
size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial
size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003>If you are planning to do *development* on
it, although it is not documented as well as everyone would like (have you seen
ANY product that is?), the code is modular, well-structured, and straightforward
to understand and modify, once you understand the paradigms used. In fact,
it is designed so that you can replace parts of it with routines of your
own. It is very rare to find a product go to such lengths to make
that possible. In reality, I have found that the RT2 docs do a fair job at
describing it, although there have been significant
changes.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003> </SPAN>Currently, I'm left to read
the RT2 developer docs and hope RT3 is only different in "better" ways. The
window of opportunity at my company is slip sliding away. I guess I'll go
ahead and see how far I get... <SPAN class=144303719-03122003><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003><FONT face=Arial>If your window is slipping, go install
it and quit talking! :)</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P><FONT size=2>Even if the IS guys like the demo... And I don't mean to be an
ass here, but I can foresee the objections I can expect to get. They're going
to visit the bestpractical website and see less documentation than they're
used to and no convenient access to a knowledgebook. If they're patient enough
to navigate the website, they'll eventually find more documentation on
fsck.com/rtfm. But the click paths between sites aren't always short,
consistent or obvious. Then perhaps they'll visit the fsck.com homepage
itself, and the impression that will be formed when they realize how
intertwined the company and Jesse's personal website are, will be of a one-man
shop operating on a shoe-string.<SPAN class=144303719-03122003><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P dir=ltr><FONT size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003>Many of these issues
might have some validity. Maybe you should just spend 100K on
Remedy? Alternatively, consider the situation if you paid Best Practical
100k for support. (I would argue that the latter is a better business
decision in many cases.. If you like, your company can hire me to tell you
that. :)</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P dir=ltr><FONT size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003>Don't compare apples and
oranges.</SPAN></FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<P><FONT size=2>Of course the product (with support contract) that we're
currently using has bad documentation, is bug-ridden and has provided almost
nothing in the way of paid for support. But they sure do have slick website
;)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>At least RT is open source and looks fairly mature. Though if
it is within Best Practical's game plan to make in-roads into your typical
blinders-half-on mostly microsoft company, here are a couple of
suggestions:</FONT></P>
<DIV><SPAN class=144303719-03122003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> <FONT face="Times New Roman"
color=#000000>...</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003> </SPAN>Sorry for the
rant... I'm just worried about the hard sell I'll have if I take a fancy to RT
and want to push it. And I have to say, RT looks promising. I have the
impression that the people who swear by it out number those who swear at
it. <SPAN class=144303719-03122003><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003><FONT
face=Arial>If your IT org is not accustomed to using high quality open
source software, then yes -- you are likely to have a problem selling
it. (Don't blame RT for that.) If open source is already accepted,
stick to the question of whether it is high quality or not. You won't have
much of a problem.</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003>Jim
Rowan</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=144303719-03122003>(Not a Best
Practical affiliate!:)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=144303719-03122003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>