[CentOS] Caught between a Red Hat and a CentOS
clintd at scms.waikato.ac.nz
Mon Oct 19 21:35:25 UTC 2009
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."
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
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.
More information about the CentOS