[rt-users] Trying to fix a broken install of RT2.0.13
ryanm at pacificcoast.net
Mon Jul 29 16:07:03 EDT 2002
On July 29, 2002 12:24 pm, Rich Lafferty wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 09:36:09AM -0700, RT2 Troubles
<rt2trouble at morben.ca> wrote:
> > I understand the idea of this discussion group attempting to get everyone
> > to buy support before offering assistance.
> That's not the idea of this list at all. This is a bunch of volunteers
> doing things that they find interesting. Generally, "I've screwed
> things up, could someone please bail me out?" isn't something very
> interesting to work on, so there's no reason to /expect/ anything of
> this list. The *only* way you can expect support is to pay for it, and
> now you need to figure out what your time is worth to you.
Wow.. people "expect" things from a mailing list? Lets get some rope and when
we find someone that "expects" something we'll hang 'em real good! I'm with
you there, don't know who isn't, and I'm curious why you mentioned it?
Perhaps I confused you or didn't word my queries properly. Sorry if that's
> In other words, it's not "before offering assistance". If no-one
> offers assistance, it's because they don't want to, or
> can't. Suggesting that you buy support is orthogonal to that --
> suggesting that *since* you're not getting the help you need here,
> thre's an alternative. That you haven't bought support has nothing
> at all to do with whether or not people here will help.
Suggesting that I buy support is "like a matrix whose transpose equals its
inverse" ? Hmm.. Perhaps to you.. But to me it just seems like the option of
pay support is very obvious, and someone who has made it this far is likely
to be well aware of the option. To reply with "you could buy help for this",
is fine, as I said, but not only am I aware of the option, I've gone as far
as to have private discussions with Jesse about it. I'm simply letting all
the long-term list readers know that I've considered that option.
> For instance, you wrote
> > > > Anyone want to mock my process and perhaps suggest a better method of
> > > > getting RT to resume sending mail when I reply to a message?
> That would mean that someone would have to either set up an entirely
> new RT instance just to help you solve your problem -- and even then
> would have to count on making the same error you made that broke
> everything -- or to put their production or development RT instance at
> risk by doing things that are known to break it. There's really no
> incentive for anyone to do that, so you have to create an incentive,
> and one tends to create that sort of incentive by paying someone else
> to do it.
I may be misunderstanding this, but have you ever fixed a problem by calling
on the experience of others? If I thought the only way to fix my problem,
with a commonly used piece of software, on an even more comonly used OS, was
to re-create the problem, I wouldn't of even posted. Again, I don't know
where you derive your line of thought, but I actually find it weird that a
wise man would only assume one method of fixing a problem exists. I want
feedback from people with experience, even if it's just hints like, "Oh I had
something like that happen, it was a bug with...blah..blah.."..
> (Were I you, though, I'd just start over.)
As I said, and I believe it's an understatement, we really don't think a lot
alike. Thanks for your suggestion on restarting from scratch, I've actually
considered that, but I'll add your vote to my thought process.
More information about the rt-users