On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM, James Hogarth <james.hogarth at gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 April 2011 13:46, Baird, Josh <jbaird at follett.com> wrote: >> What a typical response (on this mailing list). The arrogant and >> pompous undertones of your email are ridiculous. Heaven forbid a vendor >> actually try to work with the project to achieve support and >> compatibility standards. >> >> Josh > > Don't be foolish with over the top statements.... > > It takes a trivial bit of time and research to understand the CentOS > project guideline of binary compatibility to the Upstream Vendor. > > To any technical enough to have such a discussion it should be > immediately apparent that 'working with CentOS to deal with bugs for > drivers etc' is a pretty pointless statement... and the correct effort > is upstream with Redhat. > > Should LSI spend the time with Redhat - as they should already be > doing quite frankly if they want to be relevant in the linux world - > then it assists CentOS automatically. > > To be asked to be forwarded to the appropriate forum with zero > apparent research in insulting on their part. > > The redirection requested was given - and now it is up to LSI to work > with Redhat for anything they want certified. This is far from a "foolish and over the top" statement. It doesn't matter how you think this is logically OK. None of the points you make, be they true or not, are relevant at all. The tone used in the message is the problem, not the facts. If you can't figure out how to talk to other human beings in a reasonable an respectful way, don't say anything at all. // Brian Mathis P.S. This stuff *is* on topic because it specifically relates to how the project is run, or at least perceived to be run as users like this are continually allowed to treat others with derision and disrespect.