Re: RE: Opinion: Worst interface ever.

[vbwilliams () neb rr com]

My opinion...

I won't use the products strictly because of their interfaces.  None of 
them are consistent with the other.  There needs to be consistency.

In my opinion, the interface is one of the only differentiating things 
in this line of products.  I would much rather use a version of PIX 
than mess around with Watchguard at this point in the game.  With PIX, 
I know what I'm getting.  The command line and web interfaces are the 
same regardless of the model of firewall.  Watchguard, why is every 
different model/version different...and vastly different?

In my opinion, if you're going to base a commercial firewall product on 
open/free software (which several of the Watchguards are...at least the 
ones I've dealt with), then you better differentiate your product with 
something that's definitely superior.  The documentation is definitely 
subpar, the OS is the same as any homegrown solution, so what else is 
there other than interface?

You could build yourself the equivalent of any of the Watchguard 
products for about the same price as it costs to buy one off the 
shelf.  Seeing as their support sucks, their interface sucks, their 
documentation sucks, why do people keep buying the things?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul D. Robertson" <paul () compuwar net>
Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2005 9:08 am
Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] Opinion: Worst interface ever.

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Eugene Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> > I am not familiar with the WatchGuard interface, but I will say 
> one general
> > thing in their defence -- this stuff is harder to do than it seems.
>
> Sure, but while the old interface was ugly, it was intuitive- and
> consistency is important.
>
> > For every user like you, who's annoyed about the redesign, 
> there's another
> > one who demanded that the UI be reworked in the first place: to 
> make it more
> > intuitive for his preferred configuration, or to add options for new
>
> Sure, when a vendor goes from "intuitive and simple" to "where the 
> heck is
> this thing failing, all the things the manual says are done?" I 
> think it's
> bad.
>
> > features. I'll even go out on a limb and bet $5 that somewhere 
> in the first
> > 5 minutes of your ordeal, you took a wrong turn, and it all went 
> downhill> from there. Had you taken a different path, it would've 
> all been good.
>
> One of my coworkers had the same issue, so I'm guessing that it's 
> not all
> that intuitive where that turn was.  It's frustrating to go from "hey,
> this product is good" to "hey, this revision is bad!"
>
> I'm really starting to dislike the "interface can't run locally on the
> device" stuff when coupled with "won't log on the device."
>
> > So take this as a vendor perspective: it's not easy, especially 
> since> customer requirements are increasingly diverging. More 
> features --> more
> > complexity.
>
> Hey, I didn't ask for more features, someone's marketing 
> department did!
> I'm mostly upset at myself for assuming that the new version would 
> be an
> incramental improvement of the old, not something that two of us had
> serious issues with despite following the instructions in the manual.
>
> I'm also going to add a new vendor test to my criteria- if I can't get
> read-only access to the support site without a login, that 
> vendor's off my
> list.
>
> Paul
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Paul D. Robertson      "My statements in this message are personal 
> opinionspaul () compuwar net       which may have no basis whatsoever 
> in fact."
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
> http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards