These folk have plenty to complain about. After all, many of them are the guys'n'gals who get called out at night to fix your ISP connection. Their beefs (beeves?) center on features of networking gear that interfere with the efficient completion of their appointed rounds.
Examples include modules that can't be slotted into or out of routers easily; cable adapters that don't fit the equipment; sharp edges that cut engineers' hands; handles that don't work...
Here's a sampling of the choicer bits:
- "Why did Cisco not include side handles on the 12000 chassis? It's a heavy chassis, and I can imagine how many techs have thrown out their back moving that chassis around." (NOTE: Subsequently, the thread moved on to how the scissors-jack included with the product could lift a house, or double as an office coffee-table.)
- "Personally my issues are console-cable related: is
there a benefit to the HUGE variety of console pinouts
used by the various hardware vendors?"
- "Could people just pick ONE pinout and connector and stick with it? Please!"
- "I can't stand it when I sit down and find the keyboard in front of me has moved the 'backslash' key. It drives me crazy and prompts me to find a real keyboard right away to work with."
- "RJ45 connecters that have a rubber hood over the release. Grrrrr!"
- "The little clippy widgets (looks kind of like @) on some oldschool racks, that hold the nut in place for the hex-head bolt. Why these were considered desirable is beyond me."
- "The slimline DS3 patch panels. God help you should you need to do something with the two innermost wires on the back end of that -- there's barely room for pliers, much less fingers."
- "Any device whose physical characteristics make it a likely candidate to be shelf-mounted, yet which has side ventilation ports which will be blocked by the sides of a rack shelf."
- "Routers that will accomodate high density of OCx ports but only have the bus capacity to support a fraction of hem."
— Mary Jander, Senior Editor, Light Reading
(1) the decision maker (the guy to select and buy the equipment) is not the one has to wire things up or repair it. (how many eval sheet indicate easy to maintain as requirement?), except VZ's CEO... assume he know something about it...
(2) the designer possibly never "see" the actual CO besides GR requirements... it all brought out using standard box supply anyhow (cheap and time constrain of project... when you done the design, the project time got "eaten" by the delay of state of the art components, etc.etc. the box is the last one on the list)
(3) The CO is normally too small for (a) power, (b) foot print (c) EMI consideration (d) insufficient air flow.... when you try to fit the new gear into the old CO, you meet all the GR but no room for anyone to stand (don't mention of walk... good to get slim size guy and forbid him eat MacDonald.
(4) everything is computer model, the weight does not really matter in the model (how many thermal modeling including the weight calculation?)
(5) etc.etc. don't get me started...
Unless the decision maker (either the guy buy the stuff, or the one make and design the stuff) is the one working in the field for 6 month hands on (you now scare all your MIT/Stanford graduate school kid = state of art designer away), the problem will never fix.... May be the field repair guy should start running for CEO at big place?
-st