No. He thinks they should not necessarily be absolutely static.
"Stable" means "does not crash". Not to be confused with "static"
which would imply "is not changed".
The new RAID is (supposedly) as stable as the old one.
> Right now, most investment banks on Wall Street are Solaris shops. Even
> with Solaris, they pretty much all roll their own distributions--based on
> Sun's distribution of course. They standardize on a set of patches, and
> gnu-ify the tools, as well as adding their own libraries. If Linux gets
> adopted on Wall Street, I expect it will be the same: They will take a
> distribution and then heavily modify it and forever diverge from it.
So as expected, they don't care whether the new kernel changes to the new RAID
or the newer knfsd behavior. We seem to agree here.
> experimental. However, I really don't think that is what Linus (or most of
> the Linux community) wants.
The key point is whether or not something slows down development and whether or
not it slows down adoption. The new raid code has not been backported from
2.3, so it's not time wasted. Same thing for knfsd.
What reason could there be not to use the newer raid or the newer knfsd ?
None. Very simply none. Every serious NFS user uses the patched knfsd,
and every serious raid user uses the new raid code. Even distribution
increasingly include the newer knfsd patches and the newer raid code, which
shows clearly that the problem is not stability or acceptance.
Stefan
-
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/