From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <395D1159.634DF7EB@inet.net.nz> Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 09:30:01 +1200 From: Dale Kemp MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Re: IBM to release LVM Technology to the Linux References: <8525690E.006AEE2B.00@d54mta02.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-lvm Errors-To: owner-linux-lvm List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-lvm@msede.com Ben, I'm beginning to wonder why IBM is even on this list every suggestion is for a pure LVMS solution. You say you care about LMS but everything shows that IBM only wants there LVMS solution. I understand that LVMS has extra functionality, I suspect it has many more years of development put into it than LMS. I also think its a great idea for IBM to port, since its good for your existing users and maybe new ones too. The point I'm trying to make is why not have some common standard here, even my proposal you answered, "The LVMS already does what you are talking about ... integration occurs in the LVMS instead of in the user interface, ...". Again that's not the point, this is a one eyed view once again. lvms, lvms, lvms... You suggest solutions and they are "LVMS does this, LVMS does that". Maybe IBM still doesn't get the working with the community idea here, people on this list have been very open minded regards LVMS and generally understand what you are trying to do, and are happy about LVMS coming to Linux. But most of the list wants you to help expand Linux and understand that they want you to help with it overall. Maybe some of that LVMS interface could be used in LMS, or atleast give Linux a standard concept of a volume .vs. a partition, even if all the insides of each piece are completely different. See if you can answer without saying LVMS does this... And we can tell users in the future "integration occurs in the LVMS instead of the user interface". -- Dale.