I don't know. Is there any significance to the fact that you cannot get
even ONE for a MP3000?
But the LCS3172 driver provides a virtual device to the S/390 that
smells like one...
This is not merely a documentation string! Also, who says that
a module built for 2.4.9 won't work with 2.4.9-4GB? What patches
are these that warrant changing the label??
The good thing with the dash-level in the kernel IMHO is that you keep
the old set of kernel modules, and you can
Let's say you ran a large, profitable company like IBM.
Software revenues around $12 billion.
You're risking a lot in supporting something like Linux.
OTOH - IBM achieved its utter dominance of the industry in the late
1960s using a public domain operating system.
Contrary to popular
Rather, QDIO is a hardware feature, for which IBM does not publish
the
programming interface. The interface is unique to IBM S/390. And it
is used
by more OS's than just Linux. Publishing the interface for Linux
also
publishes the interface for all other OS.
ISTR Amdahl paid a great deal of
Vic wrote:
On this list, there seem to be more Linux people than mainframe
people (or
maybe the Linux folk are more vocal), so you'd be forgiven for
thinking that
popular opinion goes in favour of RedHat. But it's been discussed
in the
past that most Linux/390 or
And among the mainframe people are some who remember the great OCO war of
the late 80's, early 90's between the VM world and IBM. A compromise (of
sorts) was reached where that part of VM that had always been source code
would remain so and so would new features that were not related to
will they decide to drop
from the next release?
Henry Schaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/26/2001 04:18:18 PM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Dennis Wicks/infosvcs/CDG)
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Mark writes:
That's
Message-
From: Gregg C Levine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 9:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
-snip-
Personal to :Mike Kershaw if you are listening, I'd like to demo on
that emulator thingie the port of Slackware that you built for S
Florian La Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are there some history pages about these discussions?
The entire history of VM, including Melinda Varian's VM and
the Community paper (an excellantly researched history, based
on years of interviews with key players) is online. The VM
community literally
for
debugging problems at a time when the IBM support folks were much less
skilled and helpful than they are today (Hi Mike!).
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Florian La Roche [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 7:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers
, December 27, 2001 12:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Gregg,
I am not 100% sure if you're talking about the Slackware port only, or
something else that goes with it. You also didn't mention any names
of the
Slackware folks you spoke with at LWE. However, yes
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Dennis G. Wicks wrote:
I think that most installations where Linux/390 is being installed
or tried have already accepted that large business risk by installing and
using IBM hardware and software in the first place. All of which is
patented, copyrighted and licensed. I
time for this!
... Shouldn't have started in the first place.
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/27/2001 01:00:38 PM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Dennis Wicks/infosvcs/CDG)
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9
My mistake, I confused myself. Time to change feet...
I think what I was getting at is the packaging/kernel versioning used by
RedHat, which means that their 2.4.9 kernel is not called '2.4.9', but
'2.4.9-something special', which means you can't fit a version-labelled
module into it. My
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, John Summerfield wrote:
There is a good reason for the way RH names its kernels. ...
SuSE is following RedHat's lead
and making it harder for the customer to run third party modules.
I'm wondering if version information on all symbols might help.
That's the
Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
It is a question of how IBM can not only reduce their own costs (to
currently
produce a separate driver for a subset of kernels of interest
It just goes to show that despite all the Peace, Love and Linux BS,
IBM still doesn't grok Open Source.
-Original Message-
From: Snyder, Bradley (LNG) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 10:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Let's
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?
Mummy knows best
What are you going to do if IBM turns around says we're bored of this OCO
hassle we are dropping all support
It just goes to show that despite all the Peace, Love and Linux BS,
IBM still doesn't grok Open Source.
Or city rules on graffiti 8)
I'm not speaking IBM as a corporation, just expressing my own observations.
As IBM supplies the great bulk of its S/390 modifications as source
patches, including CKD dasd, I don't see OCO for OSA cards as a Linux
issue, per se, nor an open source issue.
Rather, QDIO is a hardware feature, for
Remember, the ONLY Linux kernel OCO code IBM supplies, to my knowlede, is
for OSA cards!
And what about next month, or next year. In the PC world I can rip out a
card if a vendor screws me, and go elsewhere. Its a $200 annoyance not
a million dollar business risk.
Alan
That's an interesting non sequitur.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Remember, the ONLY Linux kernel OCO code IBM supplies, to my knowlede
depend on OSA cards for 390 data
communications.
--henry schaffer
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Remember, the ONLY Linux kernel OCO code IBM supplies
: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 5:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Mark writes:
That's an interesting non sequitur.
I don't think its a non sequitur - having something OCO means it can't
be updated for new kernel releases, it can't be investigated when
problems
No vendor ships Linus base kernel. Linus base kernel doesn't pass anyones
QA test suite. Linus role is to put out clean well designed code and to
ensure development takes the right paths. The vendors then all add on
top of that various things including bug fixes which while they may fix
the
: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
I like RedHat's words, but the term RedHat standard kernel bothers
me a
bit (isn't there only supposed to be *one* standard kernel?). And,
the
point has been made before, that IBM could be a bit more flexible.
No vendor ships Linus base kernel. Linus base kernel
: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 8:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
No vendor ships Linus base kernel. Linus base kernel doesn't pass
anyones
QA test suite. Linus role is to put out clean well designed code and
to
ensure development takes the right paths
o IBM evidently has issues other than the driver code itself
that prevent it releasing the driver code source
Ah, but we don't need the entire driver... just the pieces that interface w/ the
kernel... let the super secret stuff stay OCO... this just requires the design
of
Just so everyone is clear: We (IBM) do not like to resort to OCO
could have fooled me.
but in this world it is the only way to protect the intellectual property
present in the drivers.
Oh you mean your network card has something that all the hundreds of others
don't have ? Your patent
Alan Altmark made a very cogent comment in another forum: it's a question of
where we want IBM to put their resources, and taking a developer away from
new function to fix old function or restructure a bunch of drivers won't
Agreed.
help the overall effort much. Then there's testing, etc,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Nope, but I'm free to go buy some piece of hardware that isn't tied up
with intellectual property issues.
That's always your decision to make. If the objective is complete
Just so everyone is clear: We (IBM) do not like to resort to OCO, but in
this world it is the only way to protect the intellectual property present
in the drivers. If the drivers weren't OCO, anyone could step up to the
challenge to provide support. But, when all the shouting is over, IBM
Now that Red Hat Linux for S/390 is finally GA, does anyone know where to
obtain LCS drivers for the 2.4.9 Kernel? Are they included with the Red Hat
distribution?
Thanks,
Randy Shumate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Direct: 937-865-7307
Fax: 937-865-6808
LexisNexis
, Randolph W. (LNG)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Can any of the IBM'ers on this list tell me when or if the lcs driver for
2.4.9 may be made available? I have a group of folks at my site chomping
34 matches
Mail list logo
