On 6/13/06, Kurt Hansen <khansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lonni J Friedman wrote: > On 6/13/06, Timothy Payne <tim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Upgrade as in better version. >> >> I called, no reply. - 5 working days. >> >> I emailed, no reply. - 5 working days. >> >> I call to ask for my money back, they blew me off. >> >> Any more questions? > > > Sure, is all of your hardware listed in the RHEL hardware > compatibility list on RH's website? If not, Red Hat should refund him the $179 and apologize for not being more clear.
huh? RH should refund his money because he didn't bother to verify that his hardware was supported?
Don't blame the customer here. He expected to get more because he paid more. A very common and valid assumption; heck, most of capitalism is based on that basic assumpiton. Yes, it is actually a "downgrade" in a technical sense, but Red Hat should explain that and refund the $179.
Contrary to the popular mantra of those with oversized feelings of self-entitlement, the customer is not always right. Redhat posts a HCL for a reason.
This happens because the marketing of FC is unclear about what it really is. It's the old rawhide. It's beta software. The initial marketing of FC did not make that clear; it took me until FC4 to realize that, and I've been using RH since 5.X and FC from FC1.
Again, huh? Its quite clear what FC is and what RHEL is if you read its website. Only someone who hasn't paid any attention or done any research whatsoever on the products they are purchasing wouldn't be able to figure this out. Just because you made the same mistakes as the OP doesn't justify either of you. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman netllama@xxxxxxxxx LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org
