[Klug-general] Re: You can't dis apple

[J D Freeman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:28:08PM +0000, Karl Lattimer wrote:
> Is it so hard to open a terminal?

Based on what I have seen of Mac users, yes :p

> Anaconda kickstart anyone?
> 
> BTW: Uptime isn't a good rating of stability, if you've got a rogue
> piece of kernel code destroying part of your raid array in silent the OS
> is still unstable even though the uptime is OK and it didn't GPF or KP.

Erm, thats teh same kernel, thats not a debian thing, thats a kernel
thing. Don't confuse the two.

> That is what I'd hate about debian, especially in something as important
> as mdadm. File the same bug to redhat, someone would fix it within 24
> hours.

Great, file the following with redhat, and get back to me:

"software raid on linux has a hard limit of 256 devices on a single
machine, I need more".

Let me know how long it takes to fix.

> Based on the fact that debian isn't majorly supported by users, their
> user base for servers is way lower than redhat, the build system is
> archaic IMHO and lastly, it isn't a certified OS by any hardware vendor.
> Is that enough of a reason not to risk a business on it.

Hmm, Supermicro have certified hardware for it. As has tyan. The
userbase is IMHO, no good guide. As for their build system, it works
very well.

> REAL IT risk management would not let you put debian on a server because
> there could be issues with the kernel that are quiet. Verified and
> managed build processes with many a bug hunter and a thorough testing
> process make it less of a risk to use redhat, especially as Dell, HP,
> IBM and many others recommend it for servers.

You show me that you don't know what the debian crew are upto. The
stable release of debian is more stable than any other distro, IMHO. I
would risk my business on non other.

> You obviously don't know enough about the OS's to comment on it. Volume
> of machines is no indication at how good you are at running them or how
> good you are at managing the risk.

No, you're right. Volume of machines is nothing, I have managed to setup
these machines running debian with no clue as to what I am doing,
without analysing the risk I have to businesses in doing so. No, I
haven't tested the options, I haven't considered what I am doing. No, I
have no clue what so ever. You keep thinking that. Me, I will keep using
debian till I find something better.

> I don't want to have to buy someone a pint to prevent mdadm from
> breaking my raid array. Thats just f*cking ludicrous! 

I don't have to either, I chose to, I bought them the pint to say thank
you for the work they put in. Same reason I have done the same for other
software developers in the OSS communittee.

As for the bug, the bug wasn't going to break my raid array, it just
stops me from having more than 255 raid arrays on a single machine,
which was a problem.

J
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFh+qU42M0lILkmGIRAi37AJ9vn7XPCBNVhkAQdHC6JZJqGY+A5wCfYCIg
f2i2tuupBq+he/Wx+n8Tneo=
=Zl/F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----