Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-32,: Re: Definitions

# Re: Definitions

Michael Rothwell (rothwell@office.ilan.net)
Thu, 10 Aug 2000 06:46:52 -0400 (EDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Bernd Kischnick: "Re: HFS-formatted CDROMs (was: Re: Linux 2.4 Status)"
- Previous message: Ruth Ivimey-Cook: "Re: devfs / eth micro-problems"

On a tangent, what *is* the deal with Ext3 these days? I've not seen any
news about it recently.

-M

You said...

>
> hans@reiser.to said:
> > This is hilarious.
> > The problem Redhat faces that inspires their opposition is that they
> > know that if reiserfs goes in, the US market will go the way the
> > European market has, and most of them will never go back even if ext3
> > is later performance effective. Why RedHat doesn't just help ReiserFS
> > rather than fight it, well, this is the puzzle to me.
>
> To be honest, I'm a little confused by this mail.
>
> For a start, Red Hat would appear to have nothing to do with this. Linus
> makes these decisions.
>
> There was a brief period, a few weeks ago, where Alan was maintaining an -ac
> series in Linus' absence, and he quite sensibly didn't accept any major new
> stuff - he certainly refused to accept mine. The situation has now reverted
> to normal. Code submitted to Linus may or may not go in, but nobody who
> works for Red Hat can get in the way without subverting Transmeta's mail
> servers.
>
> Hans, when was the last time the ReiserFS code was prepared as a patch in
> the form that Linus prefers, and mailed directly to him? From vague memory,
> I think the MTD code went in on about the tenth such submission - so please
> list _all_ dates on which you've done so.
>
>
> Secondly, I really don't understand why Red Hat should give a flying
> wossname which filesystem their customers use. If anything, they should
> want to give customers a _wider_ choice, to increase their brand's
> attractiveness.
>
> It was my understanding that the European market has largely opted to buy
> SuSE because it's shipped from the Free World and is fully functional as a
> secure system - including SSH and other such programs which weren't
> permitted to be exported from the US.
>
> Now I can see how _that_ could affect Red Hat's business, and hopefully now
> the insane regulations are relaxed, RH7 will include the missing
> functionality and they'll be on a level playing field for once.
>
> I really don't understand why anyone could think that Red Hat would want to
> 'fight' the inclusion of ReiserFS, though.
>
> If anything, I would guess¹ that they'd be including it in their shipped
> version of the 2.4 kernel even if Linus doesn't, to ensure that no potential
> customers go off and buy SuSE instead because they need ReiserFS.
>
> --
> dwmw2
>
>
> ¹ Yes, that's a guess. Those who are paying attention may have noticed that
> I've been bought by Cygnus (i.e. Red Hat), but I am not speaking for them,
> don't have anything to do with the distribution, and have no clue what's
> going into it.
>
>

-
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: Bernd Kischnick: "Re: HFS-formatted CDROMs (was: Re: Linux 2.4 Status)"
- Previous message: Ruth Ivimey-Cook: "Re: devfs / eth micro-problems"