I think we're overdoing "that's not professional" comments

Question

[Most of this post blatantly ripped off from MDMarra's]

https://serverfault.com/questions/590349/compiling-newer-version-of-apache-in-fedora-14

... is the question that prompted my post, but this has come up before. Sure, he's using an old server OS and basically working around self-inflicted limitations, but most of us have been in a similar situation at some point: patching up old systems to keep them going just little bit longer.

In this case, part of the problem is that the OP's phrasing made it sound like he wasn't the admin of the box and it took some back and forth in comment for that critical detail to come out: the OP is administering the box he's talking about.

But even so, I think we're sometimes too quick to say "it's not professional to use such an old version" or "it's not professional to use (that software) in production" or whatever. If there's a reasonable solution (in this case, some hints for how to compile Apache), the OP should be told of it.

That's not to say that "don't do that" is a bad answer. It's perfectly valid for someone to answer "a better solution would be to upgrade your software" (OS in this case), or "don't use that software for that task." (VirtualBox in production).

Answer 1

I'm of two minds on this.

There is nothing "unprofessional" about compiling your own Apache if you have a valid administrative or business reason for doing so. For anyone to suggest that this is unprofessional is blatantly wrong.
I've had custom-compiled Apache and PostgreSQL installs on all of my servers for years, because I generally use a set of options that don't play well with vendor-supplied packages.

---

On the other hand there is a certain degree of "unprofessionalism" inherent in running Fedora 14 (which is 3-and-a-half years old at this point, and has been beyond End-Of-Life for 2 years).
An appropriate comment to leave here would be Is there any reason you cannot upgrade to a newer Fedora release which is currently supported?
(If the user is a prat and pitches a fit over this I have no sympathy. Close the question.)

In cases like this I think it is incumbent on the person posting a question to explain any special business/administrative conditions that prevent their use of the best solution (in this case, upgrading their server OS) when requesting help with an alternative solution (in this case, building Apache by hand) - Otherwise the question has The XY problem -- "I want to do it this way, so tell me how, even if what I'm doing is Bad and Wrong".

Answer 2

Old software versions are a fact of life at many companies. Just today I was at a client who is running every version of SQL Server from SQL 2000 through 2012. SQL 2000 is dead, Microsoft won't support it but this client is still running some key systems on it probably until the end of the year. Is it unprofessional that I support these systems for my client? Do I care what version they are running?

Honestly the answer to both questions is "no". This is how their business runs, and as long as they are o OK with the limitations that come with these older versions who am I to tell them they aren't professional?

In my opinion the same applies here. We offer advise to people who don't know how to do what they need to do. If they aren't comfortable upgrading, or aren't able to because of a vendor, business unit, manager requirement, etc. we need to simply accept this, explain why this is a problem, and provide any information which we can.

Answer 3

I sort of agree with your thoughts... One notable exception however: Using old software, out of support, shouldn't make a Question automatically off-topic. But when that lack of support is the heart of the question and there are supported upgrade paths available, then the question is wandering out of the scope of a professionally supportable situation and into development or hobbyist.

In reference to the question you linked to, the OP is using old software, is refusing to upgrade to a supported version, and is having problems because of that decision. These problems are part of the reason that software is out of support. If it was a supported situation, or if there was no clear upgrade path, absolutely, you're right. And I do think we tend to jump all over people when a quick comment would be sufficient.

As an aside: The other day I was reminded that 225,000 people are born every day. That's 225,000 new people every single day who do not know what you know, who don't have the experiences that you have, who haven't run into the same problems that you have. Have some patience with those people. If you ever have a day where you don't learn anything, you're probably dead.

Answer 4

There's nothing wrong with supporting old infrastructure. Choosing to do so is a heavy task that costs a lot of operational money and incurs a lot of risk, but sometimes it's the only option. Certainly it's possible, but the possibility of running an OS that does what's needed out of the box has to have a pretty solid reason to be left out of the list of options.

I agree that tone can cause us to lose sight of what's happening. An appropriate type of pushback for a question that could go either way is a commented question. A fair reaction to a response that indicates that this is out of scope is to vote to close.

Answer 5

I don't come on ServerFault much because mostly I am a developer by trade, but I happen to be in a job where I have three hats: Integration/Test, Developer, and Sys Admin. So I often have to come out of StackOverflow to one of the other trilogy sites for assistance in my questions. I answered OP's question regarding building Apache because I have asked a question before on ServerFault about how to build httpd. I later figured out how to do it and thought OP's question was certainly on topic. I don't remember the original Moderator's name, but he was not professional at all in his retorts. At first, he did ask why OP was running an older version of Fedora and OP responded in kind. It could have been left at that. However, the Moderator felt the need to poke and prod the OP I thought in a very unprofessional way. There is no need to kick a man when he is down. I felt the Moderator should have at least apologized for being unprofessional. I acknowledged in the question that the OP should have been more clear in his original question which he later acknowledged he was operating in an administrative, professional capacity.

This was not a hobbyist activity. Often times when running scanning tools such as Retina, they will flag old packages. OP was probably trying to clear one of these conditions due to security concerns because it's likely nothing much is new in terms of features from 2.2.3 to 2.2.27. The old configurations will still work. I know, because I have compiled httpd for myself this way about 5 times in the past year to stay in touch with the latest security patches for the "legacy" version. It's too costly to test a new configuration format because Apache felt the need to change the format in the latest and greatest version. RHEL still runs on a patched version of 2.2.x with backported security patches FYI.

So to sum it up, this thing went down horribly. OP was downvoted heavily for no good reason only because he posted it on Meta and got extra attention. I hope we can be a little more understanding and easier on people in the future.