View Single Post
Old 16-02-2011, 15:19   #52
qasdfdsaq
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr View Post
The bridge mode is about giving people choice as to how they use their service, which I thought it was you wanted.
I don't want it, people with a broken service want it. As far as people who want it are concerned, they want to use their own equipment because the Superhub doesn't do what they need. The majority of them right now are complaining about it failing at its more advanced routing functions, which bridge mode is only a workaround for. It gives people the choice to use a product that should do what they want but doesn't, or pay for their own device which does. On the other hand, it does not give them the choice to use a product that actually does what they want without having to supply their own standalone router and people would probably choose to use a Superhub that worked the way they need it to if the option was there. If the Superhub worked the way it is expected to for everyone bridge mode would not be necessary.

Again, I used to think it was all over the top at first, but now I'm beginning to agree with the people who say bridge mode should have been there from day one.

Quote:

Who said it was?
Nobody, but many people seem to assume it will.

As Masque would say...

Quote:
your post was a perfect sounding board and the comment was for readers in general.
qasdfdsaq is offline   Reply With Quote