mikand wrote:
But sure now when the competitors noticied they need to call their stuff "NGFW" aswell (even if they in many cases isnt a NGFW) then PA seems to have been stressed in a bad way.
That was kinda my point - back in the 3.x (and earlier) days, PA *had* no competition in the NGFW space, so they could take their time with upgrades, and make sure they worked properly. Today, every mongrel and his dog is calling their stuff a "NGFW", and PAN obviously feel they have to rush new features to market so they can keep waving the flag and saying "See? We're the innovators here. These other clowns are just following us!".
mikand wrote:
But I agree with kevin.thys - Im too a bit worried about the degree of bugs and malfunctions that are being found in the PA product line (or rather PANOS line). Or rather that these bugs/malfunctions are still there in RELEASE code and in multiple cases also still present even if the devteam claims its fixed.
Im thinking of the lately QoS-bugs aswell as the 100% cpu on the mgmt-plane.
Yeah, I've been bitten by a couple of nasty ones which simply should not have made it through QA - any QA engineer worthy of the name would have tested the functions concerned in a real-world environment and found them before referring them for rectification.
mikand wrote:
Would be interresting if some official comment could be made from a PA representative in this thread regarding how the QA process is or will be improved. Whatever was done last summer (when it is claimed that developing was halted and focus was put on fix issues/bugs in currently releases) doesnt seem to have been enough.
Don't hold your breath waiting for this one - seems these forums, while scattered with a sample of genuine PA employees, aren't "officially" monitored, or if they are, are deemed not significant enough to be worth commenting on.
... View more