[Fwd: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative preallocation)]

[Fwd: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative preallocation)]

[Dave Howorth]

Please keep the conversation on list

To me now it sounds like you're just trolling, though I suspect you
don't intend that. I really do suggest you take some time to forget
about this topic and come back to it in a few days with a clear head and
reread it all. Then decide whether it's worth pursuing.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding	speculative
preallocation)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:36:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: Dave Howorth <dhoworth@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>

[ off list ]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Howorth" <dhoworth@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>

> So the easiest way for a non-expert to describe the kernel they're using
> is most likely to name a distro and release, plus whatever updates have
> been applied. A distro-expert can translate that into the general age of
> the code and the commit numbers of the exact patches that have been
> applied if necessary. And that's why the FAQ
> 
> http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F
> 
> asks people to report the uname -a amongst a lot of other stuff.

That's all well and good, Dave, but I've spent the last 72 hours with Stan
tearing my face off precisely over his assertion that *the experts in
question won't be interested in doing that*: it should be *my*
responsiility.

If they're going to make us do the work -- and this seems the assertion
Stan,
Eric and others are making, pretty vehemently -- they need to give us *an
end game*; a question to be asking.  Or researching.

The specific issue was "we don't like CentOS cause we work for RH and they
ripped us off".  Aside from "if you think they ripped you off, then you
don't understand FOSS well enough to be making money from it", *the CentOS
kernel package names are the exact same as the RHEL packages*; CentOS makes
a point of this being true because modules have to match up.

So that seems like a red herring too.

The short version of this is:

We're trying to help them to help us, and they seem to be making that as
difficult as humanly possible, and I can't understand why.

As I said: if the kernel builder is checking out a GIT pull to build the
modules for a given kernel SRPM, than that's what I *expect* Dave et al
to want to know, and I can deal with go getting that number somehow.

But why won't anyone actually *say* that?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink
jra@baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think
RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land
Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727
647 1274

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [Fwd: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative preallocation)]

[Joe Landman]

On 07/29/2013 12:07 PM, Dave Howorth wrote:

[Actually this is Jay's wording, quoting is strange in Thunderbird]

[...]

> That's all well and good, Dave, but I've spent the last 72 hours with Stan
> tearing my face off precisely over his assertion that *the experts in
> question won't be interested in doing that*: it should be *my*
> responsiility.

I think we've isolated the issue right there.

If you look over the history of this list, you can find that this 
represents their MO.  If you keep that in mind as you 
read/write/post/respond, you will have a better sense as to whom to 
respond to and ask questions of, and listen to.

I don't have time for net.arguments, so I largely ignore people whom are 
best not responded to.

Eric and Dave are giving you good advice and information.  It behooves 
you to listen to that.

But as Dave pointed out, some time away from this, to let emotional 
levels drop, and then a judicious application of filtration is well 
worth your time.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [Fwd: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative preallocation)]

[Jay Ashworth]

Please do not move private replies back on list without permission;
that's been poor mailing list etiquette since at least 1982.

I'm *officially* done now; Dave: your partisans are cranks, and you need
to get them in hand.

Cheers,
-- jra

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Howorth" <dhoworth@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>
> To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 12:07:28 PM
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative preallocation)]
> Please keep the conversation on list
> 
> To me now it sounds like you're just trolling, though I suspect you
> don't intend that. I really do suggest you take some time to forget
> about this topic and come back to it in a few days with a clear head
> and
> reread it all. Then decide whether it's worth pursuing.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative
> preallocation)
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:36:29 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
> To: Dave Howorth <dhoworth@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>
> 
> [ off list ]
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Howorth" <dhoworth@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>
> 
> > So the easiest way for a non-expert to describe the kernel they're
> > using
> > is most likely to name a distro and release, plus whatever updates
> > have
> > been applied. A distro-expert can translate that into the general
> > age of
> > the code and the commit numbers of the exact patches that have been
> > applied if necessary. And that's why the FAQ
> >
> > http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F
> >
> > asks people to report the uname -a amongst a lot of other stuff.
> 
> That's all well and good, Dave, but I've spent the last 72 hours with
> Stan
> tearing my face off precisely over his assertion that *the experts in
> question won't be interested in doing that*: it should be *my*
> responsiility.
> 
> If they're going to make us do the work -- and this seems the
> assertion
> Stan,
> Eric and others are making, pretty vehemently -- they need to give us
> *an
> end game*; a question to be asking. Or researching.
> 
> The specific issue was "we don't like CentOS cause we work for RH and
> they
> ripped us off". Aside from "if you think they ripped you off, then you
> don't understand FOSS well enough to be making money from it", *the
> CentOS
> kernel package names are the exact same as the RHEL packages*; CentOS
> makes
> a point of this being true because modules have to match up.
> 
> So that seems like a red herring too.
> 
> The short version of this is:
> 
> We're trying to help them to help us, and they seem to be making that
> as
> difficult as humanly possible, and I can't understand why.
> 
> As I said: if the kernel builder is checking out a GIT pull to build
> the
> modules for a given kernel SRPM, than that's what I *expect* Dave et
> al
> to want to know, and I can deal with go getting that number somehow.
> 
> But why won't anyone actually *say* that?
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
> jra@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think
> RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land
> Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727
> 647 1274
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra@baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727 647 1274

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs