Login Form






Lost Password?
No account yet? Register (FREE)

Search Backup Central

Curtis
Who is This Guy?

Disclaimer

The opinions contained within this website, it's blog(s), forums, and Wikis, are those of the original poster and do not represent the position of my (or any other) employer. This blog is not owned by my employer nor does it officially represent any company.
Symantec bumbles: Users upset PDF Print E-mail
Written by W. Curtis Preston   
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Symantec turned off LIST access to their FTP server, forcing customer to go through their website to get patches, documentation, etc.  Click Read More to see what I think of that.

A while ago, I posted a similar blog entry about how Symantec wasn't making it easier to patch their software.  At least we had the FTP option.  Well, apparently, they've now taken that away.  You can point your web browser to ftp://ftp.nbu.support.veritas.com, but you will be greeted with a rather non-friendly error that says that the LIST command is disabled.  You'll get the same if you login to ftp.nbu.support.veritas.com using an FTP client. This means that you'll have no choice but to use the not-so-easy-to-use web page to find ever manual and patch that you need. 

This isn't so bad if you're downloading one or two patches.  But what if you just upgraded to 6.5.1 and want all the manuals?  You have to point and click your way through dozens of pages to get the files you want.  Prior to this change, a simple "mget *pdf" would do.

I've heard two versions of the story behind this story.  One says that this was an accidental consequence of what supposed to be an "invisible" move to a new FTP server, and that it will be corrected.  Another says that this was done on purpose.  If that's what Symantec is telling you when YOU call, I would suggest you scream LOUDLY -- VERY LOUDLY.

Come on Symantec.  Do the right thing.  Put the LIST command back. 

Comments
Search RSS
tkimball     |2008-05-28 21:27:57
Actually I'm surprised that they still allowed FTP.

Sun turned off patch access
from FTP years ago (in part due to Solaris 10's update model, but a well-crafted
wget can go far in downloading files automatically anyway).

EMC's public FTP
site is much more restricted than it used to be when it was Legato's, and I'm
sure that many can attest to Powerlink's 'so-so' interface for our
download/update needs.

So it would not surprise me if they're simply doing the
same thing everyone else is. Not that I *like* that change of heart (I'm a
loyal Ghost user at home), but I wish the community luck in getting FTP
'fixed.'

--TSK
cpreston  - That doesn't make it right   |2008-05-29 10:08:59
FWIW, I blasted Sun on this blog when they did that.

Explain to me the
business reason for making it harder for customers to get patches and
documentation.
tkimball   |2008-05-29 11:19:22
Never said I liked Sun's change either - pretty much our entire group has been
unhappy about that since it happened (in particular since the work proxy at
times will drop the end of a large HTTP download).

Personal ly I think Sun has
been of two minds about that, and as their recent 'open source' mentality takes
root the patch/doc issues may partially revert back to the old days. I'm
awaiting the results of the 'wiki' replacement for SunSolve before posting final
judgement.

--TSK
rrobins  - Do I sound upset?   |2008-05-30 09:11:24
Even more frustrating since they don't want to send the media to people either.
The last client install I went to, they had to pull teeth to get the Symantec
folks to send them the CD's. At another install, the only access to the servers
was command-line, no gui, therefore no web access, therefore no way to get the
software to the servers. Had to yell and scream to get a special ftp directory
temporarily put in place to download the software via ftp. The delay to the
project did not make the customer happy. At least there, I could download the
patches without any grief, unlike now.

I don't understand this trend at all. Is
it that companies really don't want people to use their software? Does it suck
that much? Is their licensing that weak that they think everyone will just run
it illegally? What's with all the export restrictions? Are there nuclear launch
sequences embedded in the coding? Do any of these measures stop any of their
concerns, whatever they may be, or just hinder those of us trying to get our job
done? When it's easier to get unauthorized copies via some bit torrent rather
than through the appropriate channel, then it seems like something is seriously
broken.

I can only imagine that it is some prelude to LiveUpdate and if we just
use that everything will magically update itself, seemlessly, while solving
world hunger even.

Sorry for the rant.
-r
rrobins  - wget for patches from symantec   |2008-05-30 13:27:50
Since I had to go through this again today, I thought I'd share this.

If you
have wget, then create a file with a list of the files you wish to download.
Here are some that I downloaded today:

NB_ORA_6.5.1 _294667.tar
NB_JAV_6
.5.1.winnt.x86_29466 3.exe
NB_6.5.1A.winn t.x86_296215.exe
NB_
JAV_6.5.1_294661.tar
NB_VLT_6.5.1_294673 .tar
NB_CLT_6.5.1_29
4657.tar
NB_6.5.1.so laris_294651.tar
NB_ 6.5.1.linuxR_x86_294
650.tar
NB_6.5.1.lin ux_294643.tar

Then just run this:
for i in `cat
file`;do
echo "Downloading $i"
wget http://download1.ver
itas.com/support/pro ducts/NetBackup_Ente rprise_Server/$i
ech o "Done with
$i"
done

That worked for me, though it doesn't have any error checking.
-r
rob  - this change has been reverted   |2008-06-05 10:36:12
I see that it is now once again possible to easily grab NBU patches via
commandline FTP (including "ls" and "mget" capabilities)

e.g.

ftp ftp.support.veritas. com
anonymous
user&# 64;example.com
cd
/pub/support/product s/NetBackup_Enterpri se_Server
ls
mget *6.5.1*
Only registered users can write comments!

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]

Sponsored Links