[WBEL-users] Wondering about RedHat

[Rafael Baquero S.]

I absolutelly agree with you.

Now I have one question I?

Should WB updates follow RHEL updates as soon as posible or should a time 
period be allowed for RHEL updates to be tested? What would be correct amount 
of time to wait for security updates, bug fixes, etc? Or maybe a policy of 
double checking RHEL updates could be established?

Maybe the time has come for a Whitebox REL (Reliable Enterprise Linux).

Regards.

Rafael.

On Wednesday 29 September 2004 16:54, Daniel J. Summers wrote:
> Bastiaan van der Put wrote:
> > Please buy a Redhat product and complain at them about "the quality
> > control has badly degraded".
> >
> > Else don't complain about something you don't have.
>
> I disagree.  Red Hat knows about the existence of WBEL and the other
> RHEL-based free distributions.  If the WBEL folks had been the ones to
> make the mistake, I agree that invective against Red Hat would be
> unwarranted.  But, in this case, it _was_ RH who screwed up.  And,
> probably, sent this same broken RPM to their paying customers.  I'm sure
> Mr. Hinton's remarks are mild compared to someone who actually _did_ buy
> RHEL.
>
> > And nobody forced you to upgrade, if you want to be conservative you
> > can choose yourself,
> > wait for others to report problems.
>
> His point was, he didn't use to have to be conservative.  He could
> safely update, with no problem.  The point of WBEL is *not* to beta-test
> RHEL for Red Hat - that's what the thousands of folks running FC2 and
> FC3 are doing.  RHEL (and WBEL, as it follows RHEL) is supposed to be
> the stable, no-messing-around for-real really works the first time version.
>
> > If all people wait before someone else tried it and had the
> > problems.....nothing happend.
>
> Are you familiar with the circumstances surrounding the development of
> WBEL?  For business-class applications, folks don't want beta and gamma
> versions to "try out" - they want something that will keep their
> customers happy.  The advantage to running a clone of RHEL is that Red
> Hat's QA should catch problems before they come out.  And, in Mr.
> Hinton's case, I believe he has a point that a problem in such a
> critical component being released is unacceptable.
>
> He wasn't combative, he wasn't rude - it was a well-thought question
> about the quality of software being released from Red Hat.
>
> >> So, I'm left wondering if their 'new' business model is creating some
> >> 'holes'. Perhaps Fedora Core is not in fact really feeding a good
> >> product over the the EL section? This is just all interesting to
> >> wonder about. What has changed and why are they suddenly now putting
> >> out so many bad packages?
> >>
> >> I'm really disturbed at this trend. I used to feel pretty darned
> >> secure about running up2date at any time... now???? Here I am on what
> >> is supposed to be the flagship product, and I now feel as though I
> >> need a 'test' server, upon which I can attempt to precisely mirror
> >> the packages installed on my more loaded machines, in order to see
> >> what's broken this time.
> >>
> >> Sorry to be venting here, but gee, what's going to be broken next
> >> time? The kernel? PAM? Something that will take my server down and
> >> leave me with no method to even get into it? I'm concerned.
>
> Good concerns all - have you anything constructive to address these
> concerns?  Are you offering to be a QA buffer between RHEL and WBEL?
> Remember, we're all on the same team here - we all want stable,
> reliable, and usable Linux installations for ourselves and our
> customers.  Telling a regular participant in this list that they don't
> have the right to post their concerns is, quite frankly, not your call
> to make.