[BlueOnyx:02982] Re: Installing BQ packages on BX...

[Darrell D. Mobley]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: blueonyx-bounces at blueonyx.it [mailto:blueonyx-bounces at blueonyx.it]
> On Behalf Of Michael Stauber
> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 4:42 AM
> To: BlueOnyx General Mailing List
> Subject: [BlueOnyx:02979] Re: Installing BQ packages on BX...
> 
> People have to understand that we're walking on a tightrope here: We're
> expected not to advertise our own commercial services here. Which would be
> a really cheap spin as it would give any vendor involved directly with the
> development of BlueOnyx an unfair business advantage. 

I guess this was the issue that originally pressed my button.  When I asked
why I couldn't load BQ packages on a BX server, I already knew that on a
previous installation of BX that I could because I had done so on a previous
development server I had set up, yet on a new install, suddenly I couldn't.
I wondered what had changed, therefore my original post.

Thinking back, the only thing that was different between my first and last
install were YUM updates.

So, I went back and started from square one, installing a new image from the
ISO I was using, which was burned in early summer.  When completing the
install, I elected not to perform the YUM update at that time, instead
electing to complete my setup.  Afterward, the two BQ packages in question
installed without an issue.  Granted there are some tweaks that have to be
made for the alias issue in Squirrelmail and the password auth of AWStats,
but it was doable.  YUM brought the box up to date.

So I had my answer, it wasn't that the packages wouldn't install, it was
that the ability to do so had been removed.  Rather than telling me the
ability had been removed, I was told it wasn't a good idea.  Had I been told
the ability had been removed, I would have thought oh well and moved on.
Instead I am left to wonder why the developers had removed the ability to
install old packages without advertising that fact. 

If you don't want any vendor involved directly with the development of
BlueOnyx to appear to have an unfair business advantage, then it would be a
good idea to state these types of decisions publicly, otherwise one could be
left with the impression that it was a stealth move to promote sales of new
replacements for old packages.

Please note: I do NOT believe that.  But it is easy to see how other people
could get to that idea.

Also, please note that I have always tried to keep vendor-specific questions
off this list, and only brought them here when I didn't get a response.  

I am not trying to cause problems, just trying to understand some things.
In no way should my questions be seen as not appreciating what the vendors
have provided us with.  I am thankful for what you do, but please understand
I am just an end user who rents a server.  When and if I find the
environment here caustic enough, I will be just as happy to move on to some
other web host/control panel provider, it doesn't matter who, as long as I
can create accounts and slice up a server.  So let's discuss this, if we
must, with a minimum of drama.