When it comes to dealing with any vendor, it's a crapshoot. One person
will have great success, the next will regret it.
I am still amazed that they haven't dropped a couple bucks on an email
support tracking system, god knows there's enough of them out there. I
have 2 email's to support@livingston.com, that appear to have disappeared.
A question I sent in in something like January was answered in a flurry of
mail in April.
I'm a firm believer in email support, and I hate the phone-tag game, but I
fold on Livingston. Now I call with every little question and open a
ticket, because that's the only accountability that there is, given a
shoddy email support tracking system (Not that the support via email isn't
good, just that the tracking isn't so good).
Oh well, I would like to see no multiple login stuff. Livingston
advertises on their page that they sell products to what, 1700 ISP's? I
don't ever recall seeing any kind of direct-mail from Livingston asking me
what I need.
On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 patrick@value.net wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
>
> > An ISP should make life easier for it's customers. We're here to answer
> > the stupid questions, teach people how to double-click, and explain to
> > them what a URL is.
> >
> > That doesn't mean I can turn around and expect the same thing from my
> > hardware solution provider. Was this feature promised as part of the
> > hardware/software when you purchased your Portmaster? I know I downloaded
> > the radiusd sourcecode and looked it over before I purchased my first
> > Portmaster. I knew exactly what I was getting, and at no time was I ever
> > compelled to pester Livingston for any of the changes I felt were
> > necessary for my use of their product in my enviornment. We all should
> > have got into this business with our eyes open and all this bitching about
> > something that would be 'nice' to have is really pointless, when:
>
> I disagree. One should be able to expect reasonable requests to *any*
> business that will make a customers life easier, rather you are in a
> service industry as are ISP's(nowadays), or in the hardware/software
> solutions business. Not "pestering" vendors for solutions to your
> problems usually leaves you without the solutions, or kludgy
> work-arounds.
>
> Having your needs met is important to everyones continuing sucess.
>
> >
> > 1. You've got the source for radius, and can fix it yourself.
>
> Not supported by Livingston.(and I wouldn't expect them to, beyond basic
> functionality.)
>
> > 2. There are 2 or 3 other radius implementations that will do what you're
> > asking for.
>
> Not supported by Livingston.(and I wouldn't expect them to, beyond basic
> functionality.)
>
> > 3. Its probably in the works anyway.
>
> Possible, but what do you expect everyone to do, sit in a room and just
> hope for it?
>
> > Expecting Livingston to solve all of your problems, and make you breakfast
> > every morning isn't a realistic position to have. As much as this issue
> > has been discussed before, you would think that everyone would realize that
> > this feature is probably on their List of Things to Do(tm), and has been
> > for some time. Gryphon posted a good summary of why this feature may take
> > some time to implement, and I think his summary of the situation was right
> > on the money.
>
> One of the girls in the front office could make me breakfast... er...
> anyways....
>
> Sometimes people want to know where on the list an item is. It isn't a
> static situation.
>
> I think Gryphon's response was on the money too. But you only get this
> information by asking and/or pestering. We went from MZ's "when we get
> around to it," or "just bill them" to a better understanding of where in
> the queue this request is. Again, posting "Livingston doesn't caaaaare,
> they don't liiiike meeee" kind of crap doesn't help.
>
> > I don't feel bad about bitching for features that I can't add myself like,
> > OSPF (and if we had the sourcecode to ComOS, someone would have added it
> > already. *grin*) but when people whine and moan about something that they
> > are in a position to fix themselves, it just sets me off.
>
> And others would like *supported* additions to functionality. It could be
> fixed *once* and *properly* as Livingston says they will do, or everyone
> could continue to use what Gryphon, MZ(I forget which) say aren't the best
> solutions.
>
>
> > Patrick, I respect your opinions, but I think you missed the point of my
> > reply. (that or I wasn't very clear, which is quite possible.)
>
> Not at all. However I think that *supported functionality* is important to
> quite a few people.
>
> Everyone has differing needs. Right now, we could use a PRI solution similar
> to the Ascend MAX's. Others need prevention of multiple logins, and want
> it in a supported Livingston version. To me, I need the former much more
> than the latter. To others, the reverse is true. Because *you* don't need
> a particular function, or have hacked a solution, doesn't invalidate
> someone elses need or desire for additional *supported* functionality.
>
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> Patrick Greenwell (510) 943-5769 voice
> Systems Administrator (510) 210-2000 modem
> Value Net, Inc. (510) 943-1708 fax
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>