[147800] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Well Lookie Here, Barracuda Networks tries to get me to fall
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Thomas)
Thu Dec 22 13:55:50 2011
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:54:55 -0800
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20111222184745.GA69040@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12/22/2011 10:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:26:56PM -0600, PC wrote:
>> This particular product is often used by the SMB types. This changes
>> things a bit. While I disagree with paying for signature updates you
>> didn't use (It's a service, and I don't care about their fixed costs, I
>> went into it knowing I'd have a license for the signatures as they were
>> expired), I do understand where they are coming from for software/firmware
>> development. Unfortunately, they don't decouple the two.
> Maybe I'm just a grinch, but I think they could fix this problem.
> If they set the software in the box so that on the day your
> subscription expires it no longer processes the subscription data
> there would be a lot less issue.
At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get
all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of
paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own,
or you pay for service that somebody else provides. This "you
bought useless hardware unless you pay up" is really what's
infuriating.
Mike
