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... /Peter > 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".
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
