xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RH 7.3 and XFS

To: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RH 7.3 and XFS
From: Mike Burger <mburger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:34:39 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3CF3860E.60306@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:

> Hi
> 
> 
> >>They did it for one reason: exposure. Wide testing. They sent out a 
> >>patched RedHat installer iso that enabled people to install it and test 
> >>it. Noone is screaming that SGI HAS to supply an installer for RH7.3. 
> >>They just want itm and if they don't ask, they won't know. The issue is 
> >>that it's already been discussed and people should read that it HAS been 
> >>discussed and since you cut away what I wrote below that I'll have to 
> >>rewrite it:
> > 
> > 
> > Unfortunately, this is incorrect.  SGI announces the release of the 
> > updated installer once it's completed.  They also make it available for 
> > download, via their web site.  When the installer is ready, anyone who is 
> > interested in using it has at least 2 methods of finding out about 
> > it...the linux-xfs list and the web site.  And let us not forget about the 
> > list archives, which are searchable.
> 
> Which contradict what I said in what way?
> 
> quote me:
>  >> The issue is that it's already been discussed and people should read
>  >> that it HAS been discussed .."
> end quote me

The part which reads:

Quote you:
They just want itm and if they don't ask, they won't know.
End quote you

> >>>Stefan is correct though, its not SGI's responsibility to rewrite
> >>>everyones installer, thats the vendor's responsibility, or its your
> >>>own responsibility.  nobody should be expecting SGI to do it like they
> >>>are obligated, they aren't.  remember this is a port of XFS to the
> >>>Linux kernel, NOT a port of XFS to redhat. 
> >>
> >>Yes and no, XFS is a kernel issue, true (and some userspace fluff). But 
> >>also, SGI have supplied installer isos for three consecutive RedHat 
> >>distros. Don't be surprised people are SO happy with it that they 
> >>request a new one ported to the latest RedHat.
> > 
> > 
> > But those same people, who know that the installer has been put together 
> > for the last 3 releases, can take it on pretty good faith that an 
> > installer for this version will be forthcoming.
> 
> I'm sorry, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me here. You have me 
> confused.

The next statement should have given you the indication.  I'm disagreeing 
that they need to request the next version be updated...already using the 
product, from a previous installer, and being members of this list and 
having read the previous threads, they should already know that it's 
forthcoming and should need to ask.

> > Pestering the developers about it won't make it come any faster.
> 
> The only positive it can have is show that there IS an interest in it 
> appearing. But then comes the difference in defining pestering and asking.

Fair enough...semantics are a pain in the rear. <G>

> >>Notice the difference between request and demand please.
> > 
> > 
> > Request is a single request.  Demand is a clamoring for the item.  See 
> > the difference between what you think is a request and what appears to be 
> > the reality of a demand situation.
> 
> Again, is 3 people submitting a request 3 people submitting a request or 
> a demand?
> 
> I have seen a few requests for an installer. I cannot say I've seen a 
> demand for it.

But it hasn't been 3 people...it's been more (and no, I haven't saved all 
the threads, so I don't have an accurate count, at this time).

> > What it comes down to is that the people requesting the item are well 
> > aware that the OSS folks do put together an installer ISO, and that one 
> > will come out when one is available.  The fact that they are aware that 
> > the ISO is coming should indicate to them that patience is in order, here, 
> > on their part.
> 
> IF they choose to make one. They have indicated there is work in that 
> direction.

Exactly...they have indicated that it is being worked on.  How are 
repeated requests for a deadline or release date going to help, when, as 
is the case with any development process, end dates can't really be pinned 
down without looking like fools if the dates are missed?

It doesn't really matter.  Like we've all said...it'll be out when it's 
out, and will be announced at that time, right?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>