Thank you for your reply Steve. Rather than include your original message here I just have a few comments to make. I've now made my decision to cut my losses and bail from RH as a deployment platform. The comments below outline my reasons for it, I will anxiously await the day when RH focuses on producing a stable operating system with a sane development environment instead of ramrodding everyone into using their versions of the packages. To assume that everyone has RH configured the same way or is going to use it for the same purpose is non-sensical. One of the most significant reasons why we use UNIX/FreeBSD/Linux in the first place is being able to depend upon a stable core OS on which to build applications. Apparently RH has a misguided model that extends this concept into the 'application space'. They mise as well just build all these applications into the kernel and be done with it. Then you can just buy the kernel which includes the applications you want. Not only that, if you want support you need to use their binary packages. If I'm paying money, I want support - period. If they lack the expertise to support users who want to develop applications on their platform then the whole point of an "enterprise Redhat" is somewhat of an oxymoron, because that's what 'enterprise customers' do. What's next, we can only install PHP and PERL scripts which Redhat has written? In any event, here are my reasons for setting a policy of 'no more Redhat': #1. I am aware that there are numerous fixes out there for solving these development problems - the problem is I have to specifically patch source code which compiles fine everywhere else except RH 9.x. This seems absurd to me. #2. I cannot rely upon RPMs because they do not have the compile-time options I need. Particularly with respect to PHP, Apache, and qmail. Since I can't get beyond these widely supported packages (without patching), I see little point in moving on to more complex packages. #3. I read on another thread that apparently RH 'backpatches' Apache keeping the same version number as when they released a version of RH. What a monstrosity. #4. Apparently there is some binary compatibility wierdness whereby my RH 7.x binaries won't work on 9.x. It's as if the short-term memory of RH Linux is about .5 releases long and after that you better hope to God someone compiled an RPM for your new version. #5. I categorically deny the assertion I have read elsewhere that the 'proper way to use Linux' is to use RPM's. The proper way to use anything is what is best for your particular needs. The fact is that RH and Microsoft seem to be the only OS companies out there right now who don't get this simple point. If RPM's are the 'proper way' to use RH than by God I better be able to get RPM binaries compiled in any of the variety of forms I might need. The fact that RH has laid forth a policy they simply cannot support is inexcusable to me. Either make the development environment work or give us enough RPM's that we can download the one with the options we need. To put customer's between a rock and a hard-place like this is downright crass of Redhat. #6. I am beyond frustrated with Redhat and I have basically wasted tons of time on this nonsense. For what this has cost me I could have purchased a very nice Sun and everything would be working fine right now. Instead, nothing is done, and I have an expensive pile of junk sitting here which is utterly useless to me. Greg Saylor -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
