On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 22:40, John W wrote:
> I asked about doing that when looking at the product.
> They were not willing to support the kernel issues if the Kernel were
> recompiled, or file system changed. That
Seems reasonable to me, you are modifying the system in ways they have
not tested and confirmed working. Kind of like putting a Chevy engine in
your new Dodge is not "supported" by Chrysler --even better it voids
your warranty. At least with RHAS, if you put the stock kernel (or one
of their upgraded ones) that is supported, you get your support.
> dang well makes it impossible to use XFS and have meaningful contract
> support from RH.
> My response is to puchase additional liceneses of RHL at the $80 per
> year for RPM support. Hope they understand that!
I build from the SRPMs they provide on their site. A bit time consuming
the first time, but provides nice test servers for various experiments.
> Vendor pressure on customer somehow sounds like a real bad thing in a
> partner. Sounds like another Mighty OS vendor I have run across in
What pressure? Either you use it in a configuration they can support and
get support, or you use it in a configuration they do not support, and
can't complain that they don't support it when you muck around in the
kernel. No pressure, just a choice on your end. :^)
As Eric noted, the best thing is to pressure them economically to put
XFS in there.
Rebuilding the network of Tomorrow