UT 6.0 Feedback

[nishad]

Hi, I have loaded UT 6.0 on a new mechine and restored the 5.4 configuration backup thruogh remote web interface , it restored everything perfectly and working fine. Thanks for the great stuff!!!

I liked the old graphic bars. I think the new 3D graphic bar gives a bit strain on eyes...

Remote web Interface Error reporting [IE6]...
The configuration pages loading perfectly on its own firefox browser. I am using IE6 on a remote computer getting configuration pages displaying incorrectly and I could not find the UPDATE button when I click on Firewall>>Settings and add/edit anything the pages coming as below example image.

[dmorris]

IE6 isn't supported and it won't ever be.

IE7 and firefox are the only officially supported browsers.

[carlosap]

We are a non profit organization and we dont have 120dlls/year just for a logo, admin email, and just some random text...

All we need is a new guide to manually rebrand untangle, and then i will upgrade



education and non profit organizations should have the branding option for free. Or maybe some powered by untangle and the school logo.

Or maybe some adwords so you can make money. I dont care about the ads ( like OpenDNS )

but please the logo its important because the users can say that its the organization, school or anything that is blocking that page..

This is incorrect. The branding tools were never legally free. You need to check your license agreement. They were just there for anyone who knew how to get at them. Now that Untangle as put them into the back end and controlled the access the complaints are rampant...

However, I should point out that only the "tools" to brand the UT cost you. There is nothing stopping you from climbing into the UT and reworking the HTML in the block pages.

[Statikk]

Or maybe some adwords so you can make money. I dont care about the ads ( like OpenDNS )

but please the logo its important because the users can say that its the organization, school or anything that is blocking that page..

That's an interesting idea. Wouldn't the adwords be for products that are likely being blocked by the webfilter anyways though?

[fragclub]

This seemed to turn into a thread about Branding so here you go...
I think it is REALLY REALLY BAD business practice to have a feature - licensed or not - it was on YOUR forums how to brand the old versions - and then take it away from users UNLESS they pay you to get it back.
That is nuts in the business world and a sure way to make people VERY angry.
Even if you never intended for people to use the feature - it was posted here in the forums and they did.
Actually info and how to get it was posted by UT Admins in the forums (eg: http://forums.untangle.com/showthrea...light=branding)
I think a simple EXAMPLE to drive this point home is something like this:

"I love UT it is great, I really like the webfiltering"
NEW VERSION COMES OUT
"what? They have disabled the webfiltering unless I pay for it??"

I don't think you guys would do that - it is just people had something (branding) and now they don't unless they pay for it.
You kept the old webfiltering and added NEW and enhanced webfiltering for a price.
If you want better pay for it, if you want more pay for it.

I know UT has to make a profit but giving users access to something and then taking it away is just plain BAD business sense!

[Statikk]

Currently "no". We do have a co-branding feature that allows you to add your own logo and your info. If you search hard enough in the forums, it is listed. I can't tell you since the co-branding feature is for the MSP market.

If you read this post from that very thread which I assume is the one you are referring to it states clearly that the feature was for the MSP market. The shift+click trick which allowed access to it basically "leaked" onto the forums. If you look at feature lists I don't believe you will ever see branding listed as a feature anywhere but version 6. It was something that was in development that MSPs were allowed to use. They didn't take anything away because it wasn't really given to us in the first place.

[woode]

IE6 isn't supported and it won't ever be.

We need the smiley with little hearts floating over its had for posts like this.

[fragclub]

They didn't take anything away because it wasn't really given to us in the first place.

From a business stand point:
people used it - they can't use it now because they have to pay =
unhappy users = bad business.

I know it was not "supported" but people used it and from what I can see it is Untangled Admins that "leaked" it.

I don't really care - just trying to tell UT business guys that this is just a classic business error.
I would suggest reading Masters of Doom - they pioneered this model that UT is trying to use.
Give bits out, get em hooked and then charge for the rest!
Don't let users try then must buy approach
My $.02 worth

[sky-knight]

Ok this is getting to be completely insane.

You're blaming Untangle for the fact that you've been stealing this feature for a year and now you demand it be free?

If you don't want to pay for the tool, then brand the thing yourself!

It's open source... it's all php with a ruby rails back end... it isn't that hard to go find the correct web page. All of the information you need is in the dev wiki.

[mdh]

I know it was not "supported" but people used it and from what I can see it is Untangled Admins that "leaked" it.

Untangle admins did NOT leak it. However, because the forums were (and are) operated with only essential censorship (spam, obscenity and sometimes full frontal attacks by one user against another), the leak was allowed to stay on the forum. All the time, users were told to enjoy it while they could, because the model was changing in 6.0. Well, 6.0 is here, and people are not enjoying the fact that the clock ticked down EVEN THOUGH they were told that it would.