Unless there is some reason not to can the reply be posted so the rest of us might benefit from the recommended router settings? My other question here, is why wouldn't the reply have been posted here in the first place?
Mike -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:27 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Antwort: Reply1 MS versus Linux I can back that statement, Abd ul-Rahman. Last week I received a mail directed only to me from Protel support concerning the setup of the router. I had not turned to them directly; they had been reading my postings on this thread. Regards, Gisbert Auge N.A.T. GmbH "Abd ul-Rahman An: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lomax" Kopie: <marjan@noho. Thema: Re: [PEDA] Reply1 MS versus Linux com> 23.11.2001 21:49 Bitte antworten an "Protel EDA Forum" At 10:24 AM 11/23/01 -0500, Fred A Rupinski wrote: > > Has anyone seen Protel reply directly to this forum? > >Yes, on 11/20/01, from Samual Sattel, regarding "Protel usage" I did not find that post in my archive. I suspect that Mr. Sattel may have written directly to Mr. Rupinski in response to a Rupinski post on this list. That is not uncommon. Protel, I was informed perhaps two years ago, has a policy that employees do not post to this list except for "Protelcsc," Protel Customer Service Center, which occasionally pops in when they can easily clear up some mystery that we have not handled for ourselves within a reasonable time. Exceptions are quite rare. We are pretty sure that very many employees do read this list, though perhaps fewer than was the case at one time, and perhaps once in a while an employee gets carried away and responds directly. I have been asked by an employee on occasion to convey some information to the list, a way around the restriction. At one time Protel and the users had a fairly serious adversarial stance toward each other; I think that the rule originated at that time. It was far too easy for flame wars to start. There would be other reasons as well; it can take a lot of time to write thoughtfully and it is perhaps not the best usage of employee time. I know that Mr. Foley of Accel wrote on the Accel user support list with a serious anti-time-wasting message directed at the users as well as, perhaps, at employees. But we know what happened to him, I don't think he is in the CAD business any more. I can say that there were many Accel customers who, while they were insecure about the future of the product when Protel took over, nevertheless were not sorry to see Mr. Foley go. Obviously, it is up to the users and their companies what is a "waste" and what is not. However, I *would* recommend a certain level of participation by certain kinds of Protel employee. Imagine how we would feel if a development engineer were actively asking us questions and reflecting on the answers. Relations have improved to the point that serious rudeness from a few users would be pretty strongly damped by the user community. Rules for employee participation could be developed, such as, for example, that employees would not respond to flames, that employees would need to be authorized by Protel to participate here, and limits might be placed on what the employees could reveal. I do think, however, that the value of secrecy is vastly overblown. Some matters properly remain secret, but secrecy clearly hampers communication (well, duh!), and good communication between the developers and users could greatly increase the pace of program improvement. On the other hand, there are also other ways that communication could be improved. A user panel is one possibility that has been mentioned; these users would be under NDA so the secrecy issues would not be such a problem; but they would be allowed to let the user community know that they were in communication with Protel and could serve as a conduit for surveys, etc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax Easthampton, Massachusetts USA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
