| To: | SGI XFS Dev List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | 2.5 or 2.6 rephrased |
| From: | Alan Eldridge <alane@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 14 Oct 2001 08:20:51 -0400 |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
Steve, lemme try again. For production (business/academic/???) users, people for whom a change in filesystem is a flag day that costs $$, a choice to switch to a kernel that is only provided by SGI is a tough one. I don't know how I'd justify such a thing. The old question of support/maintainance/longevity is a real tough one to wave away in that case. What would you say to such a user in making the case to use an XFS kernel, when technical arguments alone won't do? -- Alan Eldridge from std_disclaimer import * |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: acl.h (was: TAKE - Upgrade XFS to 2.4.13-pre2), Bernhard R. Erdmann |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: include/acl.h in 2.4.13-pre2, Keith Owens |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: include/acl.h in 2.4.13-pre2, Steve Lord |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 2.5 or 2.6 rephrased, Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |