On Friday 09 July 2010, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 at 8:16pm, Whit Blauvelt wrote
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:35:47PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
It has been stated many times and on many fora that Red Hat's bugzilla is not a mechanism for support. They are under no obligation to address issues raised there. Is it nice when they do? Absolutely.
There are two issues you're conflating here. The first, paramount one is: Is Red Hat taking responsibility for bugs people have taken the effort to accurately report to them? This is a measure of any software project, totally separate from the issue of whether and for what the project leads provide paid support. In particular, if they are marketing this software to anyone - even if the person kind enough to report the bug is not a paying customer - they have a responsibility _to their paying customers_ to resolve all serious bugs in a timely manner - or at least to indicate in their bugzilla why they are rejecting fixing them.
To be clear here, the "bug" in question is not present in any binaries that Red Hat ships.
To be fair, this is only true if you're refering to the fact that he could not recompile the kernel in a different way. If you consider the main bug to be that redhat doesn't provide the optimized kernel in the first place...
/Peter
None of their paying customers will ever experience this bug while running in a supported configuration. It's a case of "you broke it, you get to keep the pieces".