Helpdesk systems (Was Re: [H-GEN] newbie question - "directory" for 127.0.0.1)

[Greg Black]

On 2003-06-10, Bradley Marshall wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:06:08PM +1000, Greg Black wrote:
> > On 2003-06-09, Bradley Marshall wrote:
> > > Roundup also is apparently very good, and is very easy to install.
> > > See http://roundup.sourceforge.net/ for more details.
> > Well I haven't looked at helpdesk yet, but I can say confidently
> > that roundup won't distract me from my attempts to get RT3 doing
> > its stuff.  
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> > I thought roundup had some nice features, but its
> > screen interface sucks rocks 
> 
> Thats always a personal thing.

Partly, yes; but it was the technical aspects I was talking
about: nothing lines up; fields aren't designed to cope well
with being empty; generally, it doesn't comply with most of the
guidelines that I use to specify user interfaces.

> > and the demo was so slow that I'm
> > not sure it would scale well to a production environment.
> 
> And how do you know the server wasn't heavily loaded?
> Or underspecced as it was only for a demo?  Or the internet
> link between you and it wasn't heavily loaded?  I don't see
> this as a reason to question its scalability as there's so
> many variables you don't know the cause of the problem.

I don't know the answers to the first two questions; the link
was quite fast enough.  But if I was putting up something as a
demo, I'd either put it on a box that had enough resources to
cope or I'd put a disclaimer up saying that the demo was only
using a corner of a busy box and that its performance was not
able to be determined from the demo.  Given that there was no
such disclaimer, I'll assume that the box should have been able
to do a decent job.

I'd get a better idea if I set it up for myself, of course.  But
the combination of the user interface and the design information
that I got from the web site made me decide that I would not be
likely to use it until it had evolved quite a bit, so any such
tests would have been a waste of time.

> > Maybe
> > it will get better over time -- but by then I'll be using
> > whatever it is that displaces gnats in my world and roundup will
> > have missed this particular opportunity.
> 
> Thats your choice - I'm using both RT1 and RT2 at my current
> work and find it very good, but will probably evaluate roundup
> more closely for personal stuff.

That's great -- I hope you'll report on your experiences when
you test it, because I'm certainly interested to hear of
people's experiences with this sort of thing.

I didn't mean to suggest that roundup would never be any good,
and I really don't think I said that; I was just reporting on my
initial impressions because I thought that might be of some use
to some list members.

Greg

-- 
Greg Black <gjb at gbch.net> <http://www.gbch.net/gjb.html>
GPG signed mail preferred; further information in headers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.humbug.org.au/pipermail/general/attachments/20030610/4001fe51/attachment.sig>