On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:34:47AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 04:21:23PM +1200, cr wrote: > > That 'tech support' is a red herring anyway, at least if you have Internet > > access. I've had better support from the linux-newbie, gnome, debian > > mailing lists (and even from a guy I just happen to have met on a completely > > unrelated mailing list who runs a Linux network in UK) than I *ever* have > > from any official source. > > Because volunteers don't have to be paid, are self-motivated and don't > have to worry about a big client suing them for bad advice. The Linux > support model works better because the people volunteering to do it > tend to know what they're doing than some outsource[1] bob who may > have just walked in off the street for a call center job and may or > may not be reading off some mandated flow chart. Newbies don't quite > get this, oddly enough, never mind they've probably used a similar > model by asking a friend for help before trying to call tech support... > > > [1] I know the horror first hand. Worked in a 5000 employee call > center for Stream International and there were maybe 20 people who > didn't have to use the flow charts...alt.tech-support.recovery has > similar tales from around the world from outsource bobs with a clue. Now, imagine calling tech support for major router vendor C, J, or N; or calling tech support for a tier 1 provider. If you can quickly demonstrate that you have a clue, you get lucky and get moved up to a level 2 or 3 tech. Otherwise you are stuck with bob. Bob sucks when your PC is broken; he really sucks when your network is down. I hate tech support. It's a PITA to call, and sucks to be on the other side too. -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
Attachment:
pgpFyzqTiQWyK.pgp
Description: PGP signature