Re: [Symantec NIS] They did it again: Support issues
From: Joseph V. Morris (jvmorris@erols.com)Date: 06/28/02
- Next message: Dieter Henss: "User two factor authentication on laptops"
- Previous message: dr.emailposter: "Re: [Symantec NIS] They did it again: Support issues"
- In reply to: dr.emailposter: "Re: [Symantec NIS] They did it again: Support issues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Joseph V. Morris" <jvmorris@erols.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:32:26 -0400
"dr.emailposter" <dr.emailposter@freedom.nex> wrote in message
news:afg8d2$2lqu$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
| How can Symantec then identify "threats" if their people can not
identify a
| problem in their own services?
|
| It makes one think...
|
| I still stick with NIS 2002 Pro because it's a good product. But I still
| echo my original post: the product is good, the service is bad.
I've tried to explain to Symantec what's wrong with their online tech
support as, apparently, has Phil. They just don't get it, as far as I can
tell.
They've created a situation (due to poor documentation in the first place)
in which probably 90% of the requests they receive for technical support
can be answered with those boilerplate responses of which they are
inordinately fond. (Somehow, it seems to have escaped them that they
wouldn't even be _getting_ these _particular_ queries if their online help
was better organized and more explanatory.)
They are obviously playing to the firewall novices, people who would
otherwise take the free version of Zone Alarm or one of the freeware
versions of other software firewalls. They come out ahead (in regards to
this particular category of responses) simply because they _do_ provide
the boilerplate responses, whereas many of the others don't.
However, there are two areas in which they are _losing_. And again, this
seems to be beyond their capability to comprehend.
First, they don't routinely monitor requests for assistance in the USENET
or GRC NNTP forums devoted to security or in those UBB forums (web-based
forums) that handle the remainder of the requests for tech support of
computer security products. If their _own_ tech support wasn't so abysmal
for queries (other than those for which they've developed canned
responses), this would be no big deal. But it is. It is _incredibly_
difficult to query the Symantec site and receive constructive replies for
anything but the most mundane issues -- issues which _should_ be handled
by better documentation in their online help files. Most people with such
queries simply quit using Symantec tech support -- I know I did almost two
years ago. As far as I can tell, there's almost a _policy_ which
prohibits their tech support people from responding to such 'off-the-wall'
queries. And with no monitoring of the USENET/UBB newsgroups/forums, the
problem is simply exacerbated.
Second, and perhaps more critically, there's no meaningful technical
knowledgebase or communications channels open to those individuals (such
as myself) who _try_ to handle the resulting queries that occur in the
USENET/UBB forums. Nor is there any support for the technically advanced
users who understand NIS/NPF (or even AtGuard) quite well. It becomes a
void. This is irritating (very irritating) to people like myself that
have some modicum of understanding of NIS/NPF/AG and who _try_ to respond
to those queries that invariably surface in the USENET/UBB forums. And
ultimately, a lot of these advanced users simply drop out -- either they
don't respond to queries anymore (which they feel should rightfully be
handled by Symantec in the first place) or they simply switch to another
software firewall (and consequently soon forget all of the detailed
nuances of NIS/NPF which they've figured out the hard way -- which is the
only way to do it, as matters currently stand).
Yes, it's a stupid philosophy and I certainly won't attempt to defend it
(nor, apparently, will Symantec). They are, effectively cutting their own
throats, but I suspect they won't realize it until they've actually
managed to do so. By comparison, Microsoft tech support looks like a
shining star.
Oh, I'll still be here tomorrow, I suspect, but Symantec itself is making
it increasingly difficult for me to do what I'm trying to accomplish here.
(They do show up on occasion to inform me that my inferences as to what is
going on are incorrect; but that's not exactly encouraging me to continue
trying to read their minds.) Their strategy is self-defeating, but I
suspect they will only learn this the hard way. And it's a real pity,
because they really do have an excellent product -- they just need to
provide some substantive technical support for a rather advanced software
firewall, and that seems to be beyond their comprehension..
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris
jvmorris@erols.com
ICQ #29438199
This is a NEWSGROUP message; except for privacy reasons, please respond
therein; an e-mail COPY is always appreciated, of course.
Almost all electrons used in the creation of this message were recycled.
No electrons used in the production of this message were harmed or
mistreated in any manner.
- Next message: Dieter Henss: "User two factor authentication on laptops"
- Previous message: dr.emailposter: "Re: [Symantec NIS] They did it again: Support issues"
- In reply to: dr.emailposter: "Re: [Symantec NIS] They did it again: Support issues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
