decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Whatever were they thinking? | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Whatever were they thinking?
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 11:52 PM EDT

I am shocked they would have even tried this maneuver in the first place. Whoever thought up that idea needs to be dismissed, then Cisco needs to apologize and immediately distance themselves from the very notion.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Cisco was already on my don't buy list because...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 01:20 AM EDT
1. They lost sync with the rest of tech years ago, seeing the world only though
their own concepts and terminology. They were probably the last router vendor
to implement modern NAT (which they insist on calling "PAT") because
their inbread minds were stuck on the early form that dedicated one public IP
for each inside computer that was actually talking to the Internet at a given
time.

2. They keep perpetuating their own failed protocol proposals as if they are the
only thing, making their equipment semi-incompatible. For instance they charge
extra for the ability to use any of their IP phone equipment with the standard
SIP protocol, insist on WiFi implementations that only work with their choice of
PC and server platforms, etc.

3. They insist on providing essential support information (such as software
updates) only through a cadre of indoctrinated "Cisco Network
Engineers", imposing consultant costs on customers who know the tech, just
not the Cisco obfuscation of it (or even if they know that, but don't have a
current Cisco exam certificate of indoctrination).

4. Years ago the otherwise very good Cisco branded CPE router that came with my
broadband connection had a known security flaw with a known Cisco patch, but the
patch was only available through several intermediaries who couldn't care less
and the patch was never delivered to the hardware before it was removed years
later.

So for the network I now run and manage I have avoided all Cisco products, using
in its place a mix and match of HP (good high end printers and servers, lousy
network gear and desktops), D-link (nice hardware, ditch the software), Netgear
(ditto), Apple (needed for talking to other Apple gear), and various minor
brands from all 3 northern hemisphere continents. Some are better than others,
but I am not locked in and can replace a bad product with one from a
competitor.

There are other brands on my don't buy list because of significant or repeated
past failures, obvious examples include Sony (repeated incidents of malware
imposed on customers, mentioned by others) and ZyXEL (half-done firmware that
isn't completely implemented despite repeated upgrades).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )