On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 16:58, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >> (1) RHEL is PAID TO CARE
> >
> >
> > Some PC's crash. I'm sure everyone at RHEL feels bad about that.
> > Others run for years running the same software.
>
> But RH was accepting money and being paid to do something about
> it.
The article said they could not reproduce the bug. That is about
all you need to know to see that they can't possibly fix it.
> > on it. Is it the hardware vendor's fault or RHEL's that the
> > same workarounds haven't been disclosed in open source drivers? Or
> > is it the customer's fault for not picking more dependable hardware?
>
> You do miss the point, here. It matters not who's "fault" it may
> be. It does matter that a customer was lost, for whatever reason.
It matters as far as the article goes, relating to others.
> >> (3) the customer left for greener pastures, and
> >> (4) RHEL can expect more of the same...
> >
> >
> > Except from people whose hardware doesn't crash, which is most
> > of them. The problem may very well be something in the linux
> > device drivers but the point is that it isn't reproducible which
> > is why it shouldn't be news. I've been through that myself with
>
> Umm, you are arguing against something I didn't claim. I claim that
> it is of interest to me, because it may affect the future of a product
> which I use. Do you disagree with that?
I'd agree that if _all_ RHEL boxes were crashing every two weeks
that the product needs to be fixed. That's obviously not the case.
I'd agree that if a customer could show a reproducible situation
that causes a crash that it should be fixed or the hardware taken
off the supported list. That wasn't the case either. Any business
has to be reasonable about where they put their resources. Chasing
a hardware fluke that happens on one box every two weeks is not a
good use of anyone's time.
> > a box that would crash under load about every other week but
> > nothing I tried would cause it to happen predictably. I moved
> > the same software to a different box and went on with life.
> > And they probably could have done the same.
>
> Umm, I dunno about that. I *am* aware of how the organization
> treats some customers who pay for support, and I do know that
> it has in past driven other customers away. I have seen the
> same attitude in other suppliers cause better products to die,
> while inferior products flourish, due to the difference in
> support. I'd prefer that Linux flourish and not die just because
> MS is willing to do more of what is necessary to make life easier on
> customers than some other organization which supports Linux is
> willing to do.
Should they have given them new hardware that worked right as
part of the software support?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
