🚀 go-pugleaf

"Brian" ==>> Brian Macke <macke@telegroup.com> wrote:

Brian> I'm left questioning my effort of five hours last night. I have a
Brian> feeling that, like many of my complaints to WatchGuard, this will
Brian> invariably be discounted out of hand.

If that was the case, why did anyone at WatchGuard bother to contact
you at all?

Brian> [note to the mailing list: This is a CC of an exchange between myself
Brian> and WatchGuard...

Randy Boroughs telephoned Brian immediately after he received this
reply, and talked to Brian.  During the exchange, Brian realized he
had been too hasty and had attributed bad intentions to WatchGuard
where none had existed.

The second key point was that Mr. Macke was using an unsupported
client operating system.  All companies selling software packages have
to make decisions about what platforms they support and what platforms
they do not support.  If it wasn't acceptable to him to use a
supported operating system, he could have cut his losses there.  He
chose not to.  Note that we continued to accept support calls from him
and did not charge him for our time, in spite of the fact that he was
using an unsupported client operating system.

We've looked at the support logs for telegroup (over 80 calls) and the
overwhelming majority are patterned as follows:

 o Mr. Macke calls up with a problem.
 o We ask for copies of the logs or configuration so we can figure out
   what is going on and fix the problem.
 o Mr. Macke agrees to give us the logs.
 o Mr. Macke does not give us the logs or configuration.
 o Mr. Macke calls a few days later with another problem.

Several of the problems Mr. Macke reported (including the ones he
discussed on this mailing list) are unique in our experience.  No
other customer has reported such problems.  We certainly would have
liked to solve telegroup's problems.  Our ability to do so was
seriously impaired by the lack of specific configuration information
and logs indicating what had happened.

-- 
Jon 144
jong@watchguard.com