For the last week I’ve been backing up data on my DNS-323 for the sole purpose of updating the firmware. It’s important to have a backup just in case the device takes the RAID set with it like it did a few revisions ago. I have had luck over the last 2 firmware updates where that wasn’t the case, but better safe than sorry.
Since the NAS is brimming with bits and has barely enough space to hold a text file this process took several hours of my time. Mostly due to the maximum length allowed for FAT32 filenames on my destination drive. Not Dlink’s fault in any way. Neither is the unfortunately slow 1gbps connection which could have been faster.
The entire reason for my upgrade was to enable the use of TLS/SSL for ftp purposes. I have a DNS-323 in another state where the ability to backup using the scheduled FTP client in the appliance would be really useful so no additional client would be necessary. 2 of the units with scheduled backups going to each other in separate states would give me that great big feeling of DR. Unfortunately after several more hours of not only reading, but attempting various tweaks to the gamut of FTP clients I could find (including the cmdline) it turns out that the advertised TLS/SSL support doesn’t actually work past a firewall. Maybe a little more into the RFC of secure FTP than I know, but apparently it has to do with the use of a range of ports used to transfer data aside from the statically configured port in the DNS-323 interface. What does that mean for me and maybe a dozen other geeks who are speaking out? It means it doesn’t work as expected. The directory listing never comes through and nothing ever happens. Pretty much makes my entire morning and several hours of my week useless. I finally have something to write about so at least it’s not a total waste.
If this feature hadn’t been advertised I’m sure I would have eventually added the firmware anyway for other fixes. Dlink is still advertising that the new firmware supports TLS/SSL but isn’t changing it to say “may not always work.” It’s too bad that my disappointment happened instead Dlink’s success in making a customer happy. Every time a company puts a product on the marketplace they have an opportunity to create a very pleased customer. This is no different with firmware and updates. Dlink had a great opportunity to expand and improve an already fantastic product. Instead they pulled off a half-hearted attempt at doing what they could without regard to how this might make customers feel. Perhaps it is viewed from the naive perspective that I have already paid and therefore Dlink doesn’t have to continually impress or make me happy.
Unfortunately in the world of marketing it is incredibly important to keep the customers you already have happy. Eighty-percent of a company’s business comes from twenty-percent of its customers right? So perhaps keeping the customers they already have happy would have been a good strategy for Dlink. It is too late for that as I’m willing to forgive to an extent the fact that you “can’t please all the people all the time.” Dlink’s continued advertising of a feature that’s doesn’t actually work can easily be taken as false advertising. It is too bad for Dlink that they are driving future purchases away from their products simply by an extremely disappointing history with another of their products. Should the new firmware update come out in a timely fashion that clarifies the issue and resolves it, Dlink will at least save face, but the hope for me recommending another Dlink purchase has become very unlikely.
If a product says it will do a thing, then it *must* do that thing, otherwise a company is selling nothing besides temporary junk and future-disenchantment.
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=3462.msg49912#msg49912