Fair points, but there's a difference though (imo) between the angle some come accross from. I.e if I say I want to do X and it needs me to compile a kernel, and someone knows that there's a resolution without, then great, this is where the information becomes invaluable. Igorance is actually fine a lot of the time (as absurd as that sounds), most of us at some time or another have assumed one solution for someone else to come up with a better one. There's no shame in not knowing better, this is how we learn. This is 95% of our customers these days in fact I find.

 

However I wouldn't be condenscending like this list can be at times (don't mean the recent replies or even specifically this thread, its probably the tail of other responses), there's no harm in saying, "well ideally you could do X, but if thats not suitable, here's the link to do Y which you want". Some people just want an answer they don't understand, but thats very rare I find, most people want a solution they understand even if its not their own solution. Thats simply good education.

 

In reality though, there's rarely been an "ideal" operating that hasn't needed "something" doing which isn't necessarily following the core ideals. What people have said about RH/Centos does make perfect sense, and people do know that (mainly anyway). Unless there's an o.s that "perfectly" matches the applications that run on it, its quite likely its going to happen at some point that you need to go out of bounds.

 

Ian

 

On 4/2/06, William L. Maltby <BillsCentOS@triad.rr.com> wrote:

On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 00:44 +0100, Ian mu wrote:
> People are still seemingly deciding whats "right" for a person without
> knowing their situation.

That is an *assumption* (and you are not the first or only guilty)!

What is going on is the normal course for a project that has a certain
goal and/or viewpoint. That is, one tries to educate people about
options that they may be unaware of in the current context.

NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! Further, they may try and provide some
underpinnings that may convince the requester that there is value in the
decision made by the project participants.

When the requester comes back with sarcasm, statements indicating what
*everybody* else should want to do ("... everybody should want to
rebuild their own kernel..."), etc... well, you can see where I would
take that.

>  No one is asking for support on a kernel they've compiled themselves,
> nor are they expecting it. They aren't going to slap Centos when a
> problem arises from it and blame them.
>
> Just some situations sometimes seem to require it. One thing I'll
> likely be doing in the near future is changing the kernel frequency
> for example, and as far as I know its only possible with a recompile.
> Its unlikely it will break much, but if it does, thats on my head, and
> thats fine. I won't be asking the list why my recompiled kernel
> suddenly has a fault unless its the same on a default kernel of which
> I intend to run both, depending on requirements.
>
> I fully understand its not a Centos Supported issue in that sense due
> to its position, but isn't this mainly what this email list is for as
> well (i.e to bounce ideas, problems, solutions between each other who
> have hit a problem and possibly come up with a solution albeit
> official or unnoficial whatever that means in this context)?

In spite of all you state above, it is *very* common that after the
requester sails off and does his own thing, he then appears on the list
later on complaining that things don't work and asking for help. And
then criticizing when it turns out he was burnt by his ignorance of the
projects philosophy, goals and design decisions.

So although all you independent folks don't understand why replies are
as they often are, there may be good reason.

And I am a hardened LFSer who loves doing my builds of *everything*. But
I don't expect CentOS to support that (if I ever asked, haven't yet)
without letting me know that there is a "better way", in terms of their
operational design.

This is not directed at you, but I must say it for others. As Jim(?)
said, if CentOS philosophy, design, implementation, support, ... is not
for you, other projects may be more appropriate. Others have complained
about having to work through the undesired parts of the answers and
said, in effect, "Just tell me what I want to here and shut up about the
other stuff".

Doesn't work that way. I hope it never does.

>  <snip>

MHO
Bill