|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Keith Barrett wrote:
> Intelligent response. Fine. We get it. You like UM better.
>
No, like I said. UM works. Piranha as released by you fails consistantly
on various boxen, and with different human installers at the helm. One
human, possible human error. 2 humans, less chance of possible human
error, 3 humans... hmmm. get the picture?
> > Though testing exactly where lvs is choking is made rather difficult since
> > passing nanny the -v switch to get verbose messages is a pain in the butt.
>
> I have no idea what you are recommending here.
>
You view that as me recommending something? You really don't like to admit
there's a problem anywhere Do you? Ok, let me spell it
out. nanny. doesn't. accept. switches. like. the. docs. say. Not a
recommendation. It's a statement.
> Phone support is not a substitute for lack of training, unwillingness to
> read documentation, or an inability to pay for consulting help.
>
You just kill me keith. Considerign I've done Linux phone support myself I
know what it is and isn't. You continue to insinuate that the problem is
user based and not application based. Then again I understand. It's always
easier (and cheaper) to blame the user rather than the software. When
walking through an installation with the telephone support team still
doesn't solve the problem, I forgot that it's still OK to blame the user
because.. well.. you can!
> Linux companies support basically covers installation and configuration
> trouble-shooting. They do not cover things like architecting, learning, etc.
>
hmm. I agree. but then again most Linux companies care whether or not the
product actually works as advertised. They also tend to at least ask the
basic questions to isolate the exact area of failure when a customer
reports problems. Most linux companies don't use "it's covered in the
manual" as the stock reply to every question asked nor do they stock reply
with "well it works for us" to every OTHER statement.
> Most expire in 90 days. Red Hat's, unlike most, also includes some http
> communications to the real servers.
>
Mind explaining the http communications thing? Makes no sense.
--
David D.W. Downey
Systems Administrator
RHCE, CUA/CLA
Internet Security Specialist
QIXO.com
|
