AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.
-
@scottalanmiller I mean the fact that your customers use Avimark and that it is so far a horrible software tells me that you are willing to deal with this anyway so no more from me.
-
As an employer, if I have a tech hired to speak for me and they say something wrong, and they control the actions of the company, and I decide not to have someone above them step in and correct them and actually do the thing that they refused to do, they are my voice and have decided what the company does and stands for. If I claimed anything else, I'd be a liar.
Why would Avimark get a pass that none of us would get if we hired someone that said something wrong, defied our published requirements, and didn't do anything to correct them? What makes Avimark special that you don't treat them like everyone else?
-
@dbeato said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller I mean the fact that your customers use Avimark and that it is so far a horrible software tells me that you are willing to deal with this anyway so no more from me.
The simple fact that it's horrible software with horrible support is WHY we deal with it. It's a great opportunity for us to provide better support than the company itself can.
We have suggested our clients move to a better platform (Vetastic.com) for example. But at the end of the day, if clients call in and want I.T. support, we aren't going to just tell them no. That makes 0 sense whatsoever.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@scottalanmiller I mean the fact that your customers use Avimark and that it is so far a horrible software tells me that you are willing to deal with this anyway so no more from me.
LOL. So this is insane. So you are saying that because I get paid to fix issues, and I'm willing to get paid to fix issues, that therefore any lies from someone creating those issues that hurts my customers is somehow approved by me? This is crazy. That doesn't imply that, at all.
What kind of statement is this? And why would you say such a thing? Why are people willing to go to such lengths to try to make the actions of a bad vendor appear valid?
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
The simple fact that it's horrible software with horrible support is WHY we deal with it.
Just like all the people who get paid to support Windows, or cars that break down. There is a MASSIVE gap between "I'm willing to help a customer who needs help" and "I support the people who intentionally put them in a position of needing help."
That's like saying that any doctor that treats a wounded citizen supports the gangs that shot them.
WTF!!! The lack of logic in the desperate attempt to defend vendors at any cost boggles the mind.
-
@scottalanmiller I am not making them valid, that is the point. Just because a tech said that you always confirm it not just one tech. Will you do the same if one of your techs said a wrong or mistake statement?
I am not giving them a pass, I am actually saying that this way overblown out of proportion.
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
We have suggested our clients move to a better platform (Vetastic.com) for example. But at the end of the day, if clients call in and want I.T. support, we aren't going to just tell them no. That makes 0 sense whatsoever.
I've sensed a lot of snobbery that suggests a lot of people claim and I don't believe them one iota, that they only support customers who do 100% what they say and recommend and fire every customer who doesn't do exactly as IT says. No customer, anywhere, does that. There has started to be a trend in people putting down anyone in IT that doesn't have owner-level control and force their own systems end to end with no outside input and therefore any willingness to help anyone with anything is seen as not just accepting, but having caused the issues.
No break fix allowed in this mentality. No end user mistakes. People need to get off their pretentious high horses, In the real world we have to help real clients who pay their bills. Not all of us are independently wealthy and can have totalitarian control over every line of code deployed to our customers.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@scottalanmiller I am not making them valid, that is the point. Just because a tech said that you always confirm it not just one tech. Will you do the same if one of your techs said a wrong or mistake statement?
No, I'd have someone above them step in and remedy it. Not allow one tech to control the conversation.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
I am not giving them a pass, I am actually saying that this way overblown out of proportion.
You are absolutely giving them a pass, in every way. You are saying absolutely anything to excuse that they don't provide that support.
-
@CCWTech I know you and NTG suggest NTG better platform and I am not suggesting to not support it. What I am suggesting is that we know the software sucks and you support it but because you have to support it you need to work with them as well. SO yeah the customer needs to pay double support in a sense. You will still need them for working on the issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
I am not giving them a pass, I am actually saying that this way overblown out of proportion.
You are absolutely giving them a pass, in every way. You are saying absolutely anything to excuse that they don't provide that support.
I am not.
-
@scottalanmiller I am sure this is way too much drama for a software thread.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@CCWTech I know you and NTG suggest NTG better platform and I am not suggesting to not support it. What I am suggesting is that we know the software sucks and you support it but because you have to support it you need to work with them as well. SO yeah the customer needs to pay double support in a sense. You will still need them for working on the issue.
But what does that have to do with the conversation? Of course we support them. This thread is about a vendor not providing support. Nothing to do with anyone else.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss:
@scottalanmiller I am sure this is way too much drama for a software thread.
I agree, that's why I think it was inappropriate.
I'm not sure what made people want to take a post about how a vendor was refusing support for something necessary and promised, and turn it into drama of defending the vendor and making it about how supporting someone is then accepting the situation. There was no reason for any of that.
-
I understand, vendors are our bread and butter and if we piss them off, we can lose money and that a lot of people are afraid of looking adversarial to vendors so are willing to defend them out of self preservation. But this is a big problem in IT, customers struggle to find real IT that is going to represent them and defend them and act in their interests instead of the interests of the vendors. This is why vendors do so much to give kick backs, provide margins, etc. Even small ones, because it endears their IT reps to them and makes them feel like partners and reps of the vendor and emotionally feel like they have to act in their interest.
But when we call ourselves IT, that means working for the customer, not the vendors.
-
@scottalanmiller So are they saying they won't support the customer vendor because the Avimark server is virtual?
-
@dbeato said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller So are they saying they won't support the customer vendor because the Avimark server is virtual?
If I understand you correctly, the customer was told by support that they wouldn't support it and that the server would lose data or completely crash.
-
@scottalanmiller All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
-
@CCWTech said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@dbeato said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller So are they saying they won't support the customer vendor because the Avimark server is virtual?
If I understand you correctly, the customer was told by support that they wouldn't support it and that the server would lose data or completely crash.
Yeah, because they didn't care about the data by reapplying information or modifying the system and making the customer feel incompetent since they were not "IT". In which case it was wrong of that tech.
-
@dbeato said in AVImark support has stated that running virtual servers can result in a 40-50% data loss or complete destruction of your server.:
@scottalanmiller All I am trying to get to is that if the tech said that you contact them again and as for a manager or supervisor and check the facts with them. I am not defending the vendor or the tech. This is what I would have done knowing what are the recommendations regardless of what the tech tells me.
So many companies hide behind this, where you have to call in, hold for 20-30 minutes get a crappy tech and then rinse and repeat.
This proves that companies KNOW they are giving out bad information but don't care. Or, don't care to a degree that they even care to know if that is happening.
In that case, the company has to 'own' what the techs are telling clients. There is no plausible deniability that it was just one tech that messed up.
