@Radomir P. - although the fat client can be painful it is not mandatory.
Other options include:
1. For end users there is the web-based Control-M Self Service (great for browsing only users or limited interaction).
2. Many sites publish the fat client as a Citrix service and use it that way (i.e. one single install).
3. The installation of the fat client can be administered from the CCM, which makes life easier.
Most sites that I know only give the full-fat client to the Control-M Admins, maybe 5 or 6 users at most.
@Mark Francome I have worked using the configuration you have suggested. The Citrix I have worked on was restricted for any data movement between control-m and my workstation. As a result it was hard to smoothly generate reports, create workflows snapshots and so no. Of course it depends on citrix configuration, but still I find it less user friendly to web-based interface. As you already said control-m self-service is limited and it is Control-m's big vulnerability for the favor of such applications like UAC for example. Web-interface is more flexible, easier to maintain. It could be more broadly accessible and secured in parallel.
Installation of UAC can be also processed using automation tools such as SCCM, Ansible, or Puppet. It can be easily moved to the private or public cloud.
In general choice of the tools depends of requirement and infrastructure capabilities. For specific scenarios both application have dadicated to use. Control-M still is a elite among the other tools, but for the time being my choice is Universal Automation Center because is ... more universal :) than its competitors.
There are so many processes and tasks that can be automated in a business using a workload automation solution. When a business first introduces workload automation, what would you suggest are the best process or tasks to begin automating?
Do you have any suggestions for how to plan what ... Read More »