On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 08:32 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > Gilboa Davara wrote: > > Sorry to snip so much....but one thing struck me.... > > You said: > > > Last and not least, the OP (at least the message I saw) was talking > > about VMWare Server 2.x which had a known issue with PAM [1] and > > SELinux (...) that didn't really seem to get VMWare's attention. > > When I tried getting support (mind you, at the time we were thinking > > about spending a lot of money on ESX - for me the VMWare Server 2.x > > deployment was just testing purpose) - I got the ever-annoying-company > > line - we only support RHEL and SLES.... > > > I wonder how you could find their response annoying.. > > They state very clearly in their documentation what 32-bit and 64-bit > host Linux OS they support. They also state very clearly what 32-bit > and 64-bit host Windows OS they support. They also state the > requirements for guest OS as well as what levels of the various browsers > are supported. > > So I don't understand. Are you saying that VMware has no right to > impose some boundaries on what they will and will not support? Are > they bound by some contract to provide answers/solutions to a free > product for every flavor of Linux used as host OS? Or, are you saying > that their only obligation is to support every version of Fedora for > free? And if so, what make Fedora so special to get support? Right? They have a right to do what-ever they want. I never argued otherwise. Question is - should Fedora go along with their decision, and support their semi-broken RPMs, half-working SELinux support, missing upstream kernel support and their decision to keep certain features Windows-only. FWIW my vote is a (big) no - Fedora's resources will be better spent on qemu-kvm and virt-*. - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
