[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: 2GB of Waste? How can it be?

Dr. Tweedie:

	I think you misunderstood, or perhaps I communicated
deficiently. I assure you I was not meaning to insult any of the ext3
developers, or imply that ext3 was not stable, or designed with that in
mind. If that was your impression, I emphatically apologize for any
misunderstanding, whether my doing or not.

	When I say not out of need of users, I simply meant that users
would want to use ReiserFS as well, not that ext3 would not be a viable
choice to fulfill that need also.

	I meant that I believe that the initial decision not to provide
ReiserFS as an installation option appeared to me to be a management /
marketing decision as opposed to a technical one. I have no idea how
RedHat tests its software, but perhaps that would be something worth
telling people. I have been running RH for a very long time, long before
it was a commercial product. I understand (and accept) that it is now,
but that doesn't mean that some of the people running RH for a long
time, whom are not large enterprises, cannot remember when RH did have a
customer base that was not enterprises, and had a slightly different

	Lastly I'll just add that, I wasn't referring to the idea of
having an easy installation to get ReiserFS working as a root filesystem
(I did that absent the installer doing it for me), I was referring to
the fact that, I would hope that RH will reconsider placing ReiserFS
into RH in the future.

	When you say, "What on earth do you imagine we'd have to gain by
promoting one open-source module over another for such petty reasons?",
I say yes, I agree. In addition, I understand that SuSE is interested in
the same enterprise customers that you are, with the same concerns for
reliability, and somehow they had ReiserFS in their kernel, that is what
made me wonder. I am sure they have the same concerns about supporting
ReiserFS if it buggy than RedHat does.

	I really did not mean to insult anyone, just I like choice too,
and I want to see that choice in RH distributions also.

Very Respectfully, 

Stuart Blake Tener, IT3 (E-4), USNR-R, N3GWG 
Beverly Hills, California
VTU 1904G (Volunteer Training Unit) 
stuart bh90210 net 
west coast: (310)-358-0202 P.O. Box 16043, Beverly Hills, CA 90209-2043 
east coast: (215)-338-6005 P.O. Box 45859, Philadelphia, PA 19149-5859 

Telecopier: (419)-715-6073 fax to email gateway via www.efax.com (it's


Sunday, January 13, 2002 4:38 AM

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen C. Tweedie [mailto:sct redhat com] 
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:36 PM
To: IT3 Stuart Blake Tener, USNR-R
Cc: 'Larry McVoy'; 'Stephen C. Tweedie'; ext3-users redhat com
Subject: Re: 2GB of Waste? How can it be?


On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 12:16:44PM -0800, IT3 Stuart Blake Tener, USNR-R
> 	In theory, I agree with your concerns about changing ext2/ext3,
> but stability ought not to be the reason to never improve things.

ext3's primary goal is stability.  There are plenty of alternatives if
you want bleeding edge.  

> 	I believe this choice was made, simply to promote ext3, not out
> of the need of users.

> Very Respectfully, 

Actually, no, it isn't --- you have flat out insulted the developers
involved.  What on earth do you imagine we'd have to gain by promoting
one open-source module over another for such petty reasons?  

We evaluated both.  Reiserfs crashed and corrupted data.  We stress
our kernels *very* hard internally.  Remember, btw, that when we were
freezing features for 7.2 --- well before when 7.2 came out ---
reiserfs was still getting bug fixes for serious data corrupters every
month.  It was nowhere near as stable as it is nowadays.  And ext3 can
do online upgrade from ext2 filesystems, which is necessary for
upgrade support --- reiserfs simply cannot do that.

If you, or anybody else, or the reiserfs support team, wants to add
reiserfs support to the Red Hat installer, you are all free to do so.
The XFS team has done exactly that --- they have versions of the
install images which support XFS for new filesystems --- and
personally I'm delighted that they have done so.  Choice is good.

Red Hat tries to offer a reliable and stable base OS, not to add every
possible bell and whistle to the distribution, and frankly our users
get better value out of our development time if we spend it
debugging the supported features than adding code for stuff we don't
support.  The big advantage of open source is that you don't HAVE to
wait for us to add such features.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]