On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 03:19, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 21:04 -0400, Kurt Hansen wrote:
This wasn't just a one-time thing, but happened several times from RH7.X on up through FC2. This proved to me that Red Hat was unable to support the components of their system that were most critical to me.
These are products from the "consumer line" of the upstream vendor. For a fair judgment of their products, it is better to look at their enterprise offerings.
I think you are missing the point that there was one version of mod_perl 1.x shipped as an update to RH7.3 that was actually usable. It was broken again in RH8 and subsequent versions including went into RHEL 3 and 4. I think the 2.x version may finally be usable again in FC5 but I haven't really done stress testing.
Besides that my experience is that they are very willing to fix bugs if you send good bug reports and/or patches. So, did you try an enterprise version, and if so, did you raise these issues to the upstream vendor?
The problem is that the 1.99x versions of mod_perl included in the EL distros (and thus Centos) wasn't really release versions and thus even if built properly aren't suitable for current applications. The 'upstream vendor' has a policy against making behavior-changing updates so when you need a change like this you are out of luck.
I was also concerned that Red Hat would balk at supporting other parts of my systems if I had deviated from the supplied software. So, it didn't seem I would be getting any value for my thousands.
Yeah. If you don't require the support, it is a shame to waste that money.
Centos is the answer to a lot of problems. Just not this one unless someone were to say, rebuild the fedora FC5 versions of apache, perl, and mod_perl under Centos and put it in a yum repository somewhere in a way that updates would push through for people who want them.