[c-nsp] Service agreement warning for EOL hardware

[Elmar K. Bins]

Re Seth,

sethm at rollernet.us (Seth Mattinen) wrote:

> I don't think too many of Cisco's latest ideas on how the website should
> function (remember Java-only download cart introduction day) are in line
> with real life.

I have wondered for years now, why Cisco wouldn't enforce service
contracts on software downloads, or rather, when they would start.

Now we can also easily understand why FTP access was discontinued.
Yes - that kind of checking is possible with FTP servers.
No - Cisco only has marketing jocks and web-only programming
garage-boys at their hand. Not a real communications department
(including proper tool development) that would ask the users
about their experience.

I am quite happy that Cisco boxes do not give me as much trouble as
e.g., F5, because I'd be screwed with their idea of support in case
there's a software bug. I have experienced that kind of pain
with a bug in XE (soft-reconfig inbound - "ah, just disable the
feature")...

Btw - has the L2 Portchannel bug on ASR1ks been fixed?


> However, I must give credit for keeping extensive documentation and
> references available. For the Cisco people listening: please don't ever
> take that away or require contracts to view. It's an awesome way to self
> research and one of the major reasons I keep buying Cisco. (All the
> expertise on this list is another reason.)

Are you begging for breadcrumbs here? Remember what you shelled out for
those service contracts?

As to this list - invaluable.

Yours,
	Elmi.

-- 

"Machen Sie sich erst einmal unbeliebt. Dann werden Sie auch ernstgenommen."
							     (Konrad Adenauer)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20101001/7321e1b1/attachment.bin>