[CentOS] Caught between a Red Hat and a CentOS

[Clint Dilks]

Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Clint Dilks a écrit :
>
>   
>> My Experience has been that its the difference between installing system 
>> and setting up systems for production use.  In New Zealand at least it 
>> seems that if you can have a system where everything is installed in the 
>> standard way with a default configuration then you can get assistance.  
>> If your installation varies from this at all, the first statement is we 
>> won't / can't help until you move to the standard default configuration.
>>     
>
> I was recently called by a small local company (20 employees) who run 
> Linux: Slackware on the server, and Ubuntu on the desktops. The company 
> had "a few issues with the server" (setup by the boss himself, who 
> didn't have the spare time to maintain the thing).
>
> I took a peek at that thing. In short, it's a Slackware 11.0, a bare 
> minimum install, and then about everything from Apache to PostgreSQL to 
> whatever compiled by hand, not even with build scripts, but manually 
> with ./configure (--prefix=...... [options]), make, make install, 
> installed once and then never touched again.
>
> I said: "Erm, sorry, but, well, no."
>
> :o)
>
> Niki
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>   
And that is completely understandable but my point is with a support 
contract you arrange yourself with some company both parties agree to 
what is covered and what isn't.  So you know when you are going outside 
of your support arrangements and deal with things accordingly.  In the 
case of Red Hat it can take time to understand what the boundaries are.  
You can also run into the issue of Management assuming that paid support 
means support for everything.

In my case I have always working in Research or Academic environments 
and there is no way that a default build can meet production needs.