From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: when distros do not support official Marcelo kernels they are not being team players (was Re: reiserfs on redhat advanced server?) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 03:46:21 +0300 Message-ID: <3E3F0D5D.5070409@namesys.com> References: <20030130173522.3aa4d0e1.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> <3E397A19.60409@namesys.com> <20030130234142.E8448@vestdata.no> <3E3A6071.6060102@namesys.com> <20030131115333.GC15359@marowsky-bree.de> <3E3A67AE.4050601@namesys.com> <20030131122147.GE15359@marowsky-bree.de> <3E3A6D76.7080300@namesys.com> <86lm0xpmho.fsf@trasno.mitica> <3E3E7A95.1050908@namesys.com> <1044284001.15685.358.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E3EBA3F.7060806@namesys.com> <1044300746.15684.428.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3E3EC7EC.8090005@namesys.com> <1044304857.15684.475.camel@tiny.suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <1044304857.15684.475.camel@tiny.suse.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Chris Mason Cc: Juan Quintela , Lars Marowsky-Bree , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ragnar_Kj=F8rstad?= , Jure Pecar , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Chris Mason wrote: > >namesys does a great job of processing bug reports from any random guy >with any random set of patches/apps/distro. > A Marcelo kernel is NOT a randomly patched kernel. It is the OFFICIAL kernel that the community has picked to be the official kernel. SuSE and RedHat should be team players, and act accordingly. Linebackers should defend the quarterback, or convince the rest of the team to get a different quarterback. > But my personal belief is >that supporting the distro as a whole is different, > How? Why is what Namesys (and you, since you don't personally seem to hesitate to fix bugs wherever you can find one however much you might defend SuSE not officially doing so) does so hard? I don't think it is.... If someone finds a bug in something we don't think will become part of the official kernel, then we might charge extra once we are sure it is too obscure to be worth supporting. If they are using not the latest reiserfsprogs, then I typically feel torn between thinking that they should pay for the support when they don't read the FAQ that tells them to use the latest fsck, and not wanting them to go off muttering about how ReiserFS fsck is buggy.... Of course, when they don't want to upgrade to a recent stable official kernel, and they want to keep with a buggy old distro kernel because distro marketing has been speaking to the fillings in their head about the need for fear of unsupported Marcelo kernels, oh, this irks me....;-) > especially when >trying to keep the support costs within the bounds set by the sale price >on the box. > It doesn't really add that much to our support costs..... -- Hans