On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 at 18:00, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote:
> I disagree with the premise here. I never said I 'commonly need to remind > Juniper' about anything in relation to software updates. I was simply stating > to the OP that if he had a support contract, and he's getting the runaround > on access, reminding them of their contractual requirements may help move > things along. Understood. I was hoping something bit more than 'company must honor the terms and conditions they wrote', which thoroughly keeps vendor in the driver seat, as they can mandate customer to provide that information as part of service onboarding. So trying to push this is only likely to end up with more restrictive contract terms, and being in contract violation on lies. Slightly related, Cisco has as long as I remember (+20 years) provided security fixes without valid support contract, and I've always wondered why would they do this. I don't think other vendors (Juniper, Arista, Nokia) do it, so it seems unlikely Cisco is considering some legal liability derisking here. Perhaps just legacy good-will from era when they didn't really have competition. It would be possible to litigate vendors for security fixes on basis of duty of care, and you would likely win, if you can afford enough justice. But likely anyone in the position of wanting easier access to software cannot afford sufficient amount of justice. -- ++ytti
