I agree. Paying more does not get you better service in this industry. It gets you a lot more email spam and a huge increase in postal-mailed offers on expensive glossy paper. But it does not get you quality service. I do wonder about IBM, though. Would they be an exception? Bob Cochran Greenbelt, Maryland, USA On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 19:28, Randall J. Parr wrote: > By the way... > > Are you in any way convinced that if you paid $179 or $300 for RHEL WS > the service would be any better? > > I'm not. > > I've been through this same scenario with so many vendors over the > years. SCO. Informix. Oracle. HP. DEC. and many, many others. Each > claimed the "new and improved" customer service justified the (some > times radically) increased annual subscription. In almost every case, in > almost every instance, I paid them hundreds, sometimes thousands, of > dollars and the customer service did NOT improve. Often it got worse. > The only time it has worked at all well was when the service was > exceptional to start with. > > There are a LOT of good things about Red Hat. My experience to-date, > with RHN customer service, and with RH Support has been very poor. > > > R.Parr, RHCE > Temporal Arts > > > Robert L Cochran wrote: > > >Exactly, I have to add my complete agreement that RHN's customer service > >does NOT respond to customer inquiries promptly. They plain don't care > >about the customer! I've emailed customer service with at least 2-3 > >issues and got replies to one a few months later and not at all for the > >others. > > > >Since I have a paid RHN subscription, and the service seems to work fine > >by itself about 99% of the time, I'm not too dissatisfied. But if there > >were serious customer service issues that went unresolved, I'd cancel my > >subscription fast. I see no need to pay for poor service. > > > >Bob Cochran > >Greenbelt, Maryland, USA > > > > > > > > > > > >>Further, customer service does not seem to acknowledge or be > >>interested in solving the problem. > >> > >> > > > > > >On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 14:23, Randall J. Parr wrote: > > > > > >>Joseph Phillips wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>I received a RHN notice to upgrade my kernel to "kernel-2.4.20-9". > >>>However, during the upgrade process I received this error message" > >>> > >>>"The package kernel-2.4.20-9 does not have a valid GPG signature. > >>>It has been tampered with or corrupted. Continue?" > >>> > >>>What should I do? What's the problem? I attached a screenshot of this > >>>error. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>I have a client who, at around Jan/03, starting getting this error on > >>big (ie kernel) up2dates. Before that he had up2dated the kernel with no > >>problems. Repeated attempts to up2date and repeated attempts by him (and > >>others) have proven unable to resolve this problem with up2date. > >>Further, customer service does not seem to acknowledge or be interested > >>in solving the problem. > >> > >>He has been able to download the kernel RPMs separately using tools like > >>GetRight on Windows first time, every time, with no problems. This > >>leads me to believe there was a change in the timeouts/restart/whatever > >>configuration of Red Hat up2date servers. > >> > >>The only solution we have found to-date is to download the kernel RPMs > >>separately, install the kernel RPMs manually (using rpm -i NOT rpm -U), > >>manually edit /boot/grub/grub.conf to make the new kernel the default, > >>reboot, test, etc. and then manually sync the up2date information > >>(up2date -p I think). > >> > >>If you find a solution which does allow you to up2date kernels, let me know. > >> > >>R.Parr, RHCE > >>Temporal Arts > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
