Apache packages: creating a support vacuum | The Register

In Apache packages: creating a support vacuum | The Register, Mr Nick Kew bleats about differences in file locations used by packagers:

Among the diverse issues we have to deal with are the many users who have installed Apache from a third party package. Many of these packages are rearranged so as to be essentially unrecognisable

This, imho, is entirely pedantic. Why, the build of the software itself likely allows for every single given location encountered in 'the wild', and actually serves to limit the support nightmare by sticking to one of a handful of build location combinations rather than the hundreds possible. But, despite how packaging tends to simplify things by putting the same binaries in the same locations, there's got to be someone for whom the location is still not good enough.

The apache group should also not be taking on this kind of support work -- not only if they still hang out on IRC and webfora like a bunch of preteens. The support for the software should always come from the distributor, and sent on to the software OEM on behalf of the user. The distro should always be in the loop so that the intricacies of the distribution can be more easily translated.

Since he's taken on the role of supporting users he should not be, I cannot spare more time validating his bleating. Support people or do not support people; stop doing this halfway and then complaining about it.

Users who do not know where to find httpd.conf and who grab one of these completely unsupported distributions kicked over the fence by the also-ran organizations should not be surprised when they run into problems. They've chosen to have no support structure; they've asked for it, bought and paid for it. So they should also not be putting the apache group into such positions.

This is why some distros charge money, and I'm surprised there are people who are so stupid they don't get it. Maybe it needs to appear on some stupid webforum somewhere.