xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

[Fwd: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative prea

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Fwd: Re: A short digression on FOSS (Re: understanding speculative preallocation)]
From: Dave Howorth <dhoworth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:07:28 +0100
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: MRC Laboratory for Molecular Biology
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20060911)
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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Dave Howorth <dhoworth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

[ off list ]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Howorth" <dhoworth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx
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

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