RH now exiting 1 more data center

[Vincent]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 10:36:25 +1000 (EST)
Res <res at ausics.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, AMAZING POWERS OF OBSERVATION wrote:
> 
> >     sometimes other than security ...you may not need an upgrade . my
> > fedora box has been ruining since the release . i will do a complete
> > new  install when fc 2 stable comes out . if your maintaining that many
> > computers  . id go get red hat enterprise .    unless its a cheap
> > company .
> 
> The fact of the matter is the RH9 and slackware boxes have no problems.
> I can not afford to keep a fedora box online just to see its next crash
> and debug it, our clients expect a working reliable service, they get it
> off slackware and they get it off RH9, we will use what works for minimal
> inconvenience to our clients, I said  initially it was a sad day RH went
> this way and this proves it,  only 2 fedora boxes, they both F up after
> around the same time, they both need to be rebooted daily ( fuck me, if i
> want to reboot a machine daily  ill install windows ) its beyond a joke
> and is taking up engineeers time when they could be doing beter things.
> 
> 
> >    then just let us know what happen and we can QA it . unless you dont
> > know what your doing   .  if u need to flam me do it off the board
> 
> no i prolly dont, after all ive only been with RH since 6 months after
> they first kicked off, with with slackware for 10 years, solaris, hpux
> digital. ur right im a clueless fuckin idiot.
> much like you id say.
> 
> 
> > .                      On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 17:30, Res wrote:
> >
> > > Well ive listened to the other bashers and those ones who think Fedora
> > > will be better than the RH we knew....I maintain about 40 slackware
> > > boxes, 2 fedora and 3 RH9. since the last round of updates the 2 fedora
> > > boxes have died several times without reason, total lockup on kernel
> > > panics. the other boxes incl rh9 just chug away like they are not even
> > > there, because  RH 9 will cease to get supporot in 2 months, i will be
> > > going into the data center today to piss off the 2 fedora boxes and
> > > replace them with slackware, and sadly,in a couple months or whenever i
> > > get sick ofmanually making and applying updates, the 2 RH9 boxes will go
> > > to slackware as well... I find it unacceptable that fedora is now the
> > > winblow$ on the linux world., as I and numerous
> > > other loyal RH's since almost day one saw this lack of QC with these
> > > fedora changes, I am not at all suprised.
> > >
> > > I do not know what checking process is in place now with this 'open co
> > > munity' bullshit but its F'in pathetic QC compared to the old.
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> -- 

You've been asked to supply more information than 'it kernel panics without reason'
you're an expert so this should not be too difficult. I know you're upset and
could not care less about fedora but some of us like it and are interested in
making it better. Can you please supply any technical details about the problem
you're having? Thanks.

The guy wasn't wrong for asking if you knew what you were doing. You said there
was no reason for the kernel panic, usually tecnical users know how to find out
the reason. It was a honest question you shouldn't be offended.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040222/e43bf749/attachment-0001.sig>