WARNING ON ENGENIUS PRODUCTS

Thinking of buying something from Engenius? Think again.

When their tech support people were asked what the source of the
terrible drivers for one of their client adapters, they said they did
not know. They could not answer any other questions related to this
either.

When a message was left for their senior tech. to return a call he did
not. They did not respond to emails either.

Some of the adapter drivers they put out and which are sold by many
third party dealers are crap, plain and simple. Their claims of which
OS's their products work on are mostly bogus; I don't think they
themselves know.

I suggest before anyone buys from this company or it's dealers they
determine if Engenius is going to be around for support or even reply. I
would also suggest you double check with USERS only as to if their
products, in particular their software actually works.


consumer

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 01:10:51 +0000 (UTC), consumer <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Thinking of buying something from Engenius? Think again.
>
>When their tech support people were asked what the source of the
>terrible drivers for one of their client adapters, they said they did
>not know. They could not answer any other questions related to this
>either.
>
>When a message was left for their senior tech. to return a call he did
>not. They did not respond to emails either.
>
>Some of the adapter drivers they put out and which are sold by many
>third party dealers are crap, plain and simple. Their claims of which
>OS's their products work on are mostly bogus; I don't think they
>themselves know.
>
>I suggest before anyone buys from this company or it's dealers they
>determine if Engenius is going to be around for support or even reply. I
>would also suggest you double check with USERS only as to if their
>products, in particular their software actually works.

Amazing. When you supply the model number of the product, the
hardware version, the firmware version you so detest, and the manner
in which you tested it, perhaps I can take your mud slinging
seriously. Extra credit for itemizing the allegedly bogus claims. I
normally ignore any opinions that do not provide enough information to
reproduce (or avoid) the alleged problem. Thanks for providing a
classic example of such an opinion.

(Disclaimer: I'm not associated with Engenius in any way).

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> answered:

>On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 01:10:51 +0000 (UTC), consumer <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>Thinking of buying something from Engenius? Think again.
>>
>>When their tech support people were asked what the source of the
>>terrible drivers for one of their client adapters, they said they did
>>not know. They could not answer any other questions related to this
>>either.
>>
>>When a message was left for their senior tech. to return a call he did
>>not. They did not respond to emails either.
>>
>>Some of the adapter drivers they put out and which are sold by many
>>third party dealers are crap, plain and simple. Their claims of which
>>OS's their products work on are mostly bogus; I don't think they
>>themselves know.
>>
>>I suggest before anyone buys from this company or it's dealers they
>>determine if Engenius is going to be around for support or even reply. I
>>would also suggest you double check with USERS only as to if their
>>products, in particular their software actually works.
>
>Amazing. When you supply the model number of the product, the
>hardware version, the firmware version you so detest, and the manner
>in which you tested it, perhaps I can take your mud slinging
>seriously. Extra credit for itemizing the allegedly bogus claims. I
>normally ignore any opinions that do not provide enough information to
>reproduce (or avoid) the alleged problem. Thanks for providing a
>classic example of such an opinion.
>

Your welcome. Normally I ignore replies like yours, but since I know you
from previous posts, I will answer.

I will be happy to identify the device and drivers in private email to
you, if you wish, providing you give assurances here that you won't share
the email with third parties or here.
Until I tried their crap drivers I had no axe to grind against Engenius.
Now I think they should rename their company to Encompetent. I posted for
consumers only, end users. If they don't want to heed my warning don't say
I didn't warn you. My only motivation in posting is to save others the time
and trouble of taking Engenius' claim is seriously and being extra careful
in anything they even consider ordering from that company.


>(Disclaimer: I'm not associated with Engenius in any way).

Are you sure you have no biz dealings with them??

>

Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> answered:

>On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 01:10:51 +0000 (UTC), consumer <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>Thinking of buying something from Engenius? Think again.
>>
>>When their tech support people were asked what the source of the
>>terrible drivers for one of their client adapters, they said they did
>>not know. They could not answer any other questions related to this
>>either.
>>
>>When a message was left for their senior tech. to return a call he did
>>not. They did not respond to emails either.
>>
>>Some of the adapter drivers they put out and which are sold by many
>>third party dealers are crap, plain and simple. Their claims of which
>>OS's their products work on are mostly bogus; I don't think they
>>themselves know.
>>
>>I suggest before anyone buys from this company or it's dealers they
>>determine if Engenius is going to be around for support or even reply. I
>>would also suggest you double check with USERS only as to if their
>>products, in particular their software actually works.
>
>Amazing. When you supply the model number of the product, the
>hardware version, the firmware version you so detest, and the manner
>in which you tested it, perhaps I can take your mud slinging
>seriously. Extra credit for itemizing the allegedly bogus claims. I
>normally ignore any opinions that do not provide enough information to
>reproduce (or avoid) the alleged problem. Thanks for providing a
>classic example of such an opinion.
>

Your welcome. Normally I ignore replies like yours, but since I know you
from previous posts, I will answer.

I will be happy to identify the device and drivers in private email to
you, if you wish, providing you give assurances here that you won't share
the email with third parties or here.
Until I tried their crap drivers I had no axe to grind against Engenius.
Now I think they should rename their company to Encompetent. I posted for
consumers only, end users. If they don't want to heed my warning don't say
I didn't warn you. My only motivation in posting is to save others the time
and trouble of taking Engenius' claim is seriously and being extra careful
in anything they even consider ordering from that company.


>(Disclaimer: I'm not associated with Engenius in any way).

Are you sure you have no biz dealings with them??

>

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 00:59:19 +0100 (CET), Anonymous
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Your welcome. Normally I ignore replies like yours, but since I know you
>from previous posts, I will answer.

I'm honored, I think...

>I will be happy to identify the device and drivers in private email to
>you, if you wish, providing you give assurances here that you won't share
>the email with third parties or here.

Why so secret? Bug lists should be shared by all and publicly
advertised. There's no other way to get bugs fixed. Kindly recall
the crap that Intel received for hiding the FDIV bug in their early
Pentium processor, along with subsequent arithmetic bugs. If you
wanted a bug list, one had to sign an NDA from Intel. I can see that
for unreleased products and development, but once the general public
is involved, such secrecy is not necessary. Also, without publication
of known bugs, there's really no incentive to get things fixed.

However, I will draw the line on security related bugs. Those should
only be publicized AFTER a fix has been released.

If Enginius has problems with their products, I would be interested.
They sell the highly popular Senao based high power cards and access
points. If there were any major driver or product issues, it would
have been plastered all over the internet by now.

Also, I resist the tempation to condemn a company simply because one
of their products or drivers has a problem. Literally every company
I've ever dealt with has screwed up somewhere in their design or
production. They would have a series of ever improving products that
demonstate constant improvements and development. Then, they screwup
badly by switching vendors or something and produce a lemon. The
progression of the Linksys WRT54G is a great example. Versions 1 thru
4 are just fine. Version 5 is a lemon.

>Until I tried their crap drivers I had no axe to grind against Engenius.
>Now I think they should rename their company to Encompetent. I posted for
>consumers only, end users. If they don't want to heed my warning don't say
>I didn't warn you. My only motivation in posting is to save others the time
>and trouble of taking Engenius' claim is seriously and being extra careful
>in anything they even consider ordering from that company.

Well, I'm sure everyone appreciates your jesture on their behalf.
However, I personally find that blanket general condemnations without
any form of background, detail, substantiation, or even identification
of the product, to be less than worthless.

>>(Disclaimer: I'm not associated with Engenius in any way).
>
>Are you sure you have no biz dealings with them??

Yep. I've never bought anything from Engenius or done any work for
the company. I have purchased some Engenius parts and pieces to
repair one of their cordless phones (SN-900) which I later gave away
as a present.

So, why so secret? I'm curious.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:26:01
GMT, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Why so secret? Bug lists should be shared by all and publicly
>advertised. There's no other way to get bugs fixed. Kindly recall
>the crap that Intel received for hiding the FDIV bug in their early
>Pentium processor, along with subsequent arithmetic bugs. If you
>wanted a bug list, one had to sign an NDA from Intel. I can see that
>for unreleased products and development, but once the general public
>is involved, such secrecy is not necessary. Also, without publication
>of known bugs, there's really no incentive to get things fixed.
>
>However, I will draw the line on security related bugs. Those should
>only be publicized AFTER a fix has been released.

I'm not persuaded by such arguments -- that leaves innocent customers
uninformed and badly exposed during a time that bad folks may well be after
them. There's no way of knowing that an exploit hasn't gotten out. At most
I'd give the vendor a modest period of time to take action prior to public
disclosure, no more than 60-90 days.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:50:25 GMT, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:26:01
>GMT, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Why so secret? Bug lists should be shared by all and publicly
>>advertised. There's no other way to get bugs fixed. Kindly recall
>>the crap that Intel received for hiding the FDIV bug in their early
>>Pentium processor, along with subsequent arithmetic bugs. If you
>>wanted a bug list, one had to sign an NDA from Intel. I can see that
>>for unreleased products and development, but once the general public
>>is involved, such secrecy is not necessary. Also, without publication
>>of known bugs, there's really no incentive to get things fixed.
>>
>>However, I will draw the line on security related bugs. Those should
>>only be publicized AFTER a fix has been released.

>I'm not persuaded by such arguments -- that leaves innocent customers
>uninformed and badly exposed during a time that bad folks may well be after
>them. There's no way of knowing that an exploit hasn't gotten out. At most
>I'd give the vendor a modest period of time to take action prior to public
>disclosure, no more than 60-90 days.

This has been debated to death in the various security related mailing
lists (NANOG, BUGTRAQ, FullDisclosure, etc). The consensus seems to
be that some disclosure is necessary. The question is how much an
when. That varies depending across the entire spectra of possible
policies. I only bought up the issue of security related bugs so that
nobody will suggest that I advocate publicizing security holes.

However, the original issue is over an apparently driver bug, not a
security hole or potential exploit. Methinks your concerns do not
apply to such non-security related bugs.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 (E-Mail Removed)
# http://802.11junk.com (E-Mail Removed)
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 04 Feb 2006 01:11:46
GMT, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:50:25 GMT, John Navas
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:26:01
>>GMT, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Why so secret? Bug lists should be shared by all and publicly
>>>advertised. There's no other way to get bugs fixed. Kindly recall
>>>the crap that Intel received for hiding the FDIV bug in their early
>>>Pentium processor, along with subsequent arithmetic bugs. If you
>>>wanted a bug list, one had to sign an NDA from Intel. I can see that
>>>for unreleased products and development, but once the general public
>>>is involved, such secrecy is not necessary. Also, without publication
>>>of known bugs, there's really no incentive to get things fixed.
>>>
>>>However, I will draw the line on security related bugs. Those should
>>>only be publicized AFTER a fix has been released.
>
>>I'm not persuaded by such arguments -- that leaves innocent customers
>>uninformed and badly exposed during a time that bad folks may well be after
>>them. There's no way of knowing that an exploit hasn't gotten out. At most
>>I'd give the vendor a modest period of time to take action prior to public
>>disclosure, no more than 60-90 days.
>
>This has been debated to death in the various security related mailing
>lists (NANOG, BUGTRAQ, FullDisclosure, etc). The consensus seems to
>be that some disclosure is necessary. The question is how much an
>when. That varies depending across the entire spectra of possible
>policies. I only bought up the issue of security related bugs so that
>nobody will suggest that I advocate publicizing security holes.
>
>However, the original issue is over an apparently driver bug, not a
>security hole or potential exploit. Methinks your concerns do not
>apply to such non-security related bugs.

To be clear, I was responding only to your 2nd paragraph on security related
bugs. The 1st paragraph was just for context.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR ALT.INTERNET.WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless>

ignoring the responses to date, I'll only note that Jeff Keenan, of
Engenious, has posted about his products in this forum before.

Noted absence in the two posts looking for help with their products makes
(me, for one) one wonder.

L8R

Skip

--
The Society for the Preservation of Tithesis commends your ebriated
and scrutible use of delible and defatigable, which are gainly, sipid
and couth. We are gruntled and consolate that you have the ertia and
eptitude to choose such putably pensible tithesis, which we parage.

>>Stamp out Sesquipedalianism<<