Re: reiserfs on redhat advanced server?

[Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de>]

On 2003-01-31T15:20:55,
   Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> said:

> Most companies do indeed have a real need for tech support.  If the 
> distros don't support official stable linux kernels, it is a serious 
> social problem for our community, as it will substantially reduce the 
> user base for those kernels in corporate environments.  It is especially 
> a problem if the largest vendor does it.

Distros can't support multiple trees; too much support load. If you run a
vanilla kernel, use the vanilla channels, most of the time. And notice how the
_community_ doesn't support the distro kernels either, strange isn't it? ;-)

Just the way it is: You ship it, you support it. You don't ship it, you don't
support it (at least not without higher fees).

(And the kernel hackers of the vendors _do_ support such kernels on LKML etc,
and you know that: Just not as part of the 'official' support, maintenance and
certification contracts)

And I don't see the social problem. I recall that a certain filesystem got
quite a bit of exposure and testing this way, and in the end was merged into
the vanilla kernel tree. What was it called again? 

So it seems to work out quite well in the end for both sides, even if it would
be great if we didn't have to; trust me, we would have better use for our
kernel hackers.


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>

-- 
Principal Squirrel 
SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG
  
"If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the prepared (mind)."
  -- Capt. Edward A. Murphy            -- Louis Pasteur