Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-36,: Re: I vote for updated RAID and KNFSD

# Re: I vote for updated RAID and KNFSD

Sean Hunter (sean@uncarved.co.uk)
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 21:31:53 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Stephane Morand: "(no subject)"
- Previous message: Hubert Tonneau: "Re: I vote for updated RAID and KNFSD"

On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 10:07:53AM -0700, M Carling wrote:
>
> David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> > david@cobite.com said:
> > > I have no problem with the updating of tools... if I didn't want to
> > > upgrade tools, I don't have to upgrade kernels either, right?
>
> > > I say, do the updates.
>
> > Anyone who has refused to upgrade their userspace tools since
> > installation is almost certainly running daemons with known security
> > exploits in them.
>
> > What are these people whinging about, and why are we bothering to listen
> > to them?
>
> > Tools change. Bugs are found and fixed, and sometimes you have to
> > upgrade. Get used to it - it's not going to stop happening.
>
> This is an amazing thread. A dozen posts and no one has indicated whether
> they are talking about updating 2.2 or 2.3. It seems like to many
> developers, even numbered kernels are developmental and odd numbered
> kernels are experimental. There is scant evidence on this list that anyone
> sees a need for a kernel that is stable in anything but name.
>
> The new RAID code breaks existing configurations. Such changes are
> sometimes needed. However, they should never be put directly into a stable
> kernel. Deliberately breaking production systems with a kernel upgrade
> _within_ a "stable" kernel series is unconscionable.

This is pure nonsense. "Unconscionable" is if I kill your granny in
cold blood, not if I fix some bugs in your raid code. You're
perfectly capable of back-porting the raid patches if you like, or not
upgrading your kernel. A lot of big companies where I've worked
settle on a single revision of Solaris et al and keep it the same for
years. Why should linux be any different?
> Now that companies are beginning to run Linux on production systems, the
> carefree attitude toward "stable" kernels has to change. I'd love to be
> able to recommend Linux to my clients on Wall Street, but there have to be
> stable kernels first. That means nothing changes unless it's a bug fix.

Show me an OS that _only_ releases patches that don't require tool
upgrades. Clue: don't include WIN NT, Solaris, AIX, O/S 2, and
probably quite a few others that I mentioned. OSs that don't release
upgrades can't be included in this list, mind.

Secondly, I have personal knowlege of several large investment and
retail banks in the US and Switzerland that are already officially
using linux, so your clients on Wall St are possibly hipper than you
think.

Thirdly, your large commercial clients will probably be running
redhat, which ships with the new raid tools/patches as standard. This
is a pretty ridiculous situation.

> Everything else (updated drivers, new features, code cleanups) waits for
> the next major release. Otherwise, there is little difference between odd
> and even numbered kernels.

More nonsense. Updated drivers and code cleanups go into even kernels
all the time.

Sean

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Stephane Morand: "(no subject)"
- Previous message: Hubert Tonneau: "Re: I vote for updated RAID and KNFSD"