|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|