> Problem is that it ends up I > have to do > something as the program does not work so it looks like my fault.
It just does not seem fair, does it? In order to prove your innocence you end up identifying the real problem, and get no real thanks for it from anyone who really gives a rat's ass about how much you busted your tail for somebody else's failing. In fact, you could end up being resented by the very folks that ought to be thanking you for the help. I know that path far too well. I have been known to take a position with various "ignorant" vendors on different matters of paying me for my time to diagnose a problem I was blamed for if it turned out to be the blaming vendor's problem. I have never been taken up on it (Uh, I can't authorize that kind of money...". But since these issues were usually impacting recurring license fee based clients I would take on the project anyway (out of the goodness of my cold, hard heart <g>), prove my point, embarrass the vendor(s) involved in the cause of the problem, and look like a hero in the eyes of my client (who ya' gonna trust!?!). These issues have involved poor performance on a network (software vendor was caching all Firebird tables from a Server to each local machine upon app load, therefore the problem was with the client's network!), to VFP app running poorly (some PCs were plugged into an Ethernet HUB, not switch, that was servicing an Exchange Server), to the inability to completely bridge two subnets together between separate locations (vendor forgot to add a routing statement in one of two routers at each end of a T1 connection, therefore my fault. Once I discovered the problem they claimed I must have changed the setting. Assholes, I did not have the Router passwords until AFTER I agreed to track the problem down), intermittent failure to reach online Internet remote support app (one of two DNS Servers used by the vendor had an invalid target IP Address, took me 3 full days to track that one down. No "thank you" from this international vendor, of course, although it fixed a national problem that plagued them for a few prior years), <Ctrl>-C caused Linux system port shutdown whereas previous UNIX platform had no such problem (I was pooh-poohed re: the <Ctrl>-C observation, then later told "we never supported <Ctrl>-C to kill processes". Who the hell had been teaching that to their End Users for over 20 years then?), etc., etc., etc.... As you can guess, I have plenty more stories to share with my past 23 years of experience in this industry, and some of them were from my earliest years when I was a true Green Horn. All seem to have a similar pattern. Something goes wrong, the vendor points to what they think is the weakest target (me, I guess because I work out my home office instead of some glitzy palace), I end up proving irrefutably their culpability (not so much my innocence), let them try to explain it away to the client they had told "Gil Hale is at fault on this...", and then let them try to go forward after losing their credibility. Funny things is there have been times these same vendors come back with later issues and tried to lay things off on others (to include me), only to once again have their pants pulled down in public, and humiliated for their ignorance and obvious focus on not stepping up to their responsibilities. Then again, who is the greater fool, I wonder? I guess one could argue it is me, as I end up correcting problems for others where I have no direct or indirect responsibility. But, with a recurring license fee based business there are times I just feel compelled to "earn my keep" over and beyond the call of duty. I end up with a very loyal client base. But, on the other hand, several unappreciative and undeserving vendors end up benefiting from my focus on making certain my clients get what they are paying for. I guess when I end up drawing my last breath I will be able to look back and know I tried to do the right things for the rights reasons, and hope my reward is to not get too hot a place in hell (for the record, I am more of a "return to carbon cycle" kind of person as opposed to a "heaven and hell" person) <g>. Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Allen > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 2:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Network problems > > > Thanks to all the replies on this network problem. I will see if I can get > this company to sort themselves out. Problem is that it ends up I > have to do > something as the program does not work so it looks like my fault. > Oh well such is life. > Allen > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of mrgmhale > Sent: 30 July 2007 20:01 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Network problems > > > Other AVs are much less intrusive out of the box IME > > Yeah, I know, SAV is pretty cranked down. It was worse with v-10.0.0. > Things were so protected the PCs and servers hardly ran due to all the new > overhead <g>... > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.25/926 - Release Date: > 29/07/2007 > 23:14 > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
