NAT, betas, ORs as dinosaurs (was RE: (PM) What ever happened to?)

Joe Hartley (jh@brainiac.com)
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:52:53 -0500 (EST)

"Adrian Rowley" <adrian@knowware.co.uk> wrote:
> There is a closed beta, I believe it to be ComOS 3.9b5. Let me know if you
> want to get on the program.
>
> Richard Morrell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Jake Messinger wrote:
> > Im getting discouraged. I havent seen any upgrades for the pm 2, irx, or
> > OR series for over a year. The OR series is in DIRE need of an upgrade to
> > be competitive.
>
> You're not the only one. Grumble, grumble, ComOS 3.8 E1 PRI bug, moan,
> moan, been broken for over two months now, harp, harp.
>
> Anyway, I had some bodies in from Lucent recently and they asked me why I
> was selling 761s instead of ORs. When I told them why (overpriced and
> lacking features) they said that there was a beta version of the software
> for the OR (is it ComOS?) that did NAT. Can anyone confirm this?

This closed beta has been going on for a looooong time now. The fact that
it hasn't made it out of closed beta indicates to me that there are still
serious problems with it. If I'm wrong, and it works just fine, then why
hasn't it been released? Boneheaded marketing decisions? A reluctance
to release a 3.9 version for the ORs before other platforms? Or is it that
the rest of 3.9 is broken, but the NAT's OK, and it was just a stupid
engineering decision not to roll it into the 3.8 release, but jump to 3.9?
Whatever it is (and I really don't care), it's losing LRABU business.

I don't want to have to subject customers to beta code (especially closed
beta) to get something that's been standard on other boxes that are more
competitively priced for years now. I don't want to have to sign on for a
closed beta, with all the NDAs and feedback usually required for closed betas
(from other companies; I've never participated in a LRABU closed beta) just
to get a customer a feature that is considered de rigeur in the industry.

I like the OR-Us and used to sell a fair number of them, but I won't touch
them at all now because they're so behind the times. This isn't like the
56K technology where people were calling for the admittedly experimental
KFlex implementations; this is a feature that has been used for a long time
now.

I didn't want to turn this into a rant, but LRABU's really missed the boat
on this one.

========================================================================
Joe Hartley - jh@brainiac.com - brainiac services, inc
PO Box 5069 : Greene, RI : 02827 - vox 401.539.9050 : fax 401.539.2070
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>