On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:18:09 -0500 "David A. Bandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:35:54 -0600 Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
No flame bait intended. I have no objection to xfs; I may even try it some day. "Most people who care about their data ..." is, of course, flame bait as well. The one thing I won't do (based on the comments I found in the xfs archives) is use an experimental kernel and expect from xfs developers the "amazing amount of patience" you have experienced, most especially not if I'm running the accursed distro.
What exactly are you referring to as an "experimental" kernel? The
only experimental kernels I'm aware of are some of the hacked kernels
Gentoo uses. Both RH and Debian use relatively conservative patches. I personally use a vanilla kernel. But 2.6.7 (the latest) isn't any
more experimental than the latest 2.4.x kernel.
The three most common that I see on the gentoo listings (information, not complaints, interestingly enough) are the mm, ck, and love kernels probably in that order from experimental to just plain wild. Two of the complaints I reviewed from xfs referenced these. mm is typically a little bit ahead of the vanilla kernels, and feeds back into the vanilla kernels, as I understand it.
So why would you expect anyone but the maintainer of an experimental kernel to support it?
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
18:25:00 up 26 days, 5:07, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.05, 0.10 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsub/Pause/Etc -> http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
