From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laszlo Ersek Subject: Re: Time Change Issue Xen 4.1 Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:28:14 +0100 Message-ID: <4ED756BE.3070309@redhat.com> References: <4EBD5AA0.3090906@webanywhere.co.uk> <20111111183913.GA9283@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4EC0F20D0200007800060B7D@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20111114180045.GA14517@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4EC16CA7.70901@goop.org> <20111116142604.GA7476@phenom.dumpdata.com> <4ED662B0.8060105@webanywhere.co.uk> <20111130222628.GE16651@andromeda.dapyr.net> <4ED740FD.4070603@webanywhere.co.uk> <1322733206.31810.173.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1322733206.31810.173.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Niall Fleming Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Campbell , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , "keir.xen@gmail.com" , Jan Beulich , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hello Niall, On 12/01/11 10:53, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 08:55 +0000, Niall Fleming wrote: >> Cheers, at least I know that someone is still looking at it! >> >> If someone could give me a general timeframe, like it'll be a month, >> before we fix it, or two weeks or whatever, I just need to give my >> line manager something so he gets off my case about it! > > I'm afraid OSS software doesn't generally work like that. If you (or > your boss) wants something fixed on a specific time scale or priority > you'll have to role your sleeves up and scratch the itch. Otherwise I'm > sorry but you will just have to wait until someone has the cycles to > look into this issue. I shouldn't comment on this, because - it'll be off-topic, and - (more importantly) personally I'm not knowledgeable enough to fix the problem, but I feel compelled to point out that *in general* it's not about the various rights accompanying the bits (ie. proprietary / open source / free software). It's about who gets to allocate whose resources. Under this aspect it's irrelevant under what rights the end product will be released, the question is instead who backs the effort & costs of the end product being hammered into existence. Users of FLOSS tend to mix up these two things ("what rights do I have to the code?" vs. "work on this for my sake!"). For the second concept, commercial relationships are (and have always been) the default, even if extremely forthcoming FLOSS developers used to evoke a different impression. (To make it abundantly clear, this is not an advertisment, and I'm speaking *strictly* personally, for myself alone.) Laszlo