From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by puffin.external.hp.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA22000 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 09:02:04 -0600 Received: by wallace.ece.rice.edu via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.102) for parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:03:31 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:03:31 -0500 From: "Ross J. Reedstrom" To: Frank Benke Cc: parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com Subject: Re: THANK YOU for the Linuxdays (fwd) Message-ID: <19990908100331.A24655@wallace.ece.rice.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Frank Benke on Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 10:05:34AM +0200 List-ID: Frank - Have you spent much time reading the linux-kernel mailing list? Linus is usually little swayed by 'popular opinion' as to what features go into the kernel. The principle criteria are that any new feature not hurt other features, and that the quality of the code is good. This petition drive reminds me of ~3 years ago, when some people following the GGI (General Graphics Interface) project wanted to get the early alpha code adopted into the mainstream kernel. In my opinion (and that of many kernel list regulars) the 'campaign' _slowed_ acceptance, rather than helping. In fact, the basic underlying architecture (a generic framebuffer interface) came into the mainstream kernel from the ports to architectures(SPARC, I seem to recall) that required it, and was eventually adapted to the i386 architecture, as well. So, I'm not convinced that a petition is going to help at all, and might hurt. If Linus Torvalds has rejected the lvm patches based on 'I don't think many people need this' (which is _not_ a usual criteria), it might help a little, to let the developers of the LVM patches point to as interest. But they should have download logs indicating a lot of people grabbing the patches, which says the same thing, doesn't it? I'm glad the patches work well for you. Be happy features like this can be developed by third parties. Help the LVM developers create clean code that patches in easily, and it'll end up in the kernel. Ross Ob.PA-RISC: Sorry my first post here is off topic. Perhaps I can salvage that. I've just aquired what I believe to be a HP9000 730/66 a.k.a. 'King Cobra' workstation. I haven't much time to play with it right now, but I _will_ be following this list, and trying to get your work up and running on it. Hopefully, this isn't too different from other 7XX machines. Anyone know of any 'gotcha's ? (Oh, and I have zero HP/UX experience (all Irix and Linux background). On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 10:05:34AM +0200, Frank Benke wrote: > hello folks; > > since you all seem to be interested in linux and are somehow related to > the comercial use of it, i strongly encourage you to sign the petition for > including the logical volume management in the linux kernel. linus > concidered lvm as NOT important and is not convinced that this include is > of common interest. this petition shall convince him otherwise. > > the website is found at http://linux.msede.com/lvm . > > if you have friends and colleagues, which might think positive about lvm, > please inform them and ask them to sign as well. logical volume management > is as important as filesystem-journaling and the entire lvm in its alpha > release runs quite well here at gis. > > thanks for your attention > > regards frank > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe: send e-mail to parisc-linux-request@thepuffingroup.com with > `unsubscribe' as the subject. -- Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer Computer and Information Technology Institute Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005