Under that premise the dasd drivers etc. should also be OCO. Why is a comms driver written by IBM different to a dasd driver also written by IBM? (Yes, the dasd driver does have to run as part of the kernel and therefore must be source.) We've already seen the benefits of having access to the source for diagnosing problems and implementing improvements in the dasd subsystem. I can't see any "quality control" problems that have arisen because of this. Why would this be the case for OSA/QDIO? Recall that to make it into the source tree requires approval from the maintainer who can verify with the IBM crew whether a given patch to a driver makes it in. This is the QA process that needs to be implemented and enhanced so that high quality can be maintained (as an aside which driver have we had more problems with: dasd or OSA? hmm).
> -----Original Message----- > Let's say you ran a large, profitable company like IBM. > You're risking a > lot in supporting something like Linux. Contrary to popular > belief, it is > not the silver bullet of all IT, and it is not the most > stable operating > system in existence (nor even close). Would you not want to > have a little > quality control?
