For the last week I’ve been backing up data on my DNS-323 for the sole purpose of updating the firmware.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 I have had luck over the last 2 firmware updates where that wasn’t the case, but better safe than sorry.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 Mostly due to the maximum\u00a0length allowed for FAT32 filenames on my destination drive.\u00a0 Not Dlink’s fault in any way.\u00a0 Neither is the unfortunately slow 1gbps connection which could have been faster.<\/p>\n
The entire reason for my upgrade was to enable the use of TLS\/SSL for ftp purposes.\u00a0 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.\u00a0\u00a0 2 of the units with scheduled backups going to each other in separate states would give me that great big feeling of DR.\u00a0 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\u00a0TLS\/SSL support doesn’t actually work past a firewall.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 What does that mean for me and maybe a dozen other geeks who are speaking out?\u00a0 It means it doesn’t work as expected.\u00a0 The directory listing never comes through and nothing ever happens.\u00a0 Pretty much makes my entire morning and several hours of my week useless.\u00a0 I finally have something to write about so at least it’s not a total waste.<\/p>\n
If this feature hadn’t been advertised I’m sure I would have eventually added the firmware anyway for other fixes.\u00a0 Dlink is still advertising that the new firmware supports TLS\/SSL but isn’t changing it to say “may not always work.”\u00a0 It’s too bad that my\u00a0disappointment happened instead Dlink’s success in making a customer happy.\u00a0\u00a0 Every time a company puts a product on the marketplace they have an opportunity to create a very pleased customer.\u00a0 This is no different with firmware and updates.\u00a0 Dlink had a great opportunity to expand and improve an already fantastic product.\u00a0 Instead they pulled off a half-hearted attempt at doing what they could without regard to how this might make customers feel.\u00a0 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Unfortunately in the world of marketing it is incredibly important to keep the customers you already have happy.\u00a0 Eighty-percent of a company’s business comes from twenty-percent of its customers right?\u00a0 So perhaps keeping the customers they already have happy\u00a0would have been a\u00a0good strategy for Dlink.\u00a0\u00a0 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.”\u00a0 Dlink’s continued\u00a0advertising of a feature that’s doesn’t actually work can easily be taken as false advertising.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 Should the new firmware update come out in a timely fashion\u00a0that 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.<\/p>\n