[CentOS] OT: ?? Centos Still Broken, Red Hat won't fix ??

Fri Jul 9 09:01:04 UTC 2010
Peter Kjellstrom <cap at nsc.liu.se>

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...


> 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".
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20100709/cf182751/attachment-0003.sig>