User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

The ghost of sysfs past

The ghost of sysfs past

Posted Jul 22, 2010 6:20 UTC (Thu) by russell (guest, #10458)
Parent article: The ghost of sysfs past

So how many people running RHEL5 are going to take a kernel from anyone other than Redhat? That's what they pay the $ for.


(Log in to post comments)

The ghost of sysfs past

Posted Jul 22, 2010 6:45 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]

Except that the RHEL kernel is crap for when you want some new things. And there certainly are. Time and again, people pop up in IRC that want, say, TRIM support or Xtables-addons. In reality they are not running RHEL5, but CentOS, and usually so without any support options that would cost them money. And they only do this because some whacky web administrative control panel of sorts exclusively lists RHEL as the only supported Linux OS (not even Fedora or another Enterprise distro like SLES - think of that).

The ghost of sysfs past

Posted Jul 22, 2010 7:49 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

I would note that Cpanel might be whacky but it is extremely popular in the webhosting space resulting in a enormous amount of EL/rebuild deployments. Setting aside that, for various reasons, people do run RHEL with customized kernels including the latest versions and it does not void Red Hat support contracts although people often misunderstand this. Red Hat will ask the customer to check it the problem is reproducible in the kernel that it ships and if it does, Red Hat will want to fix that issue.

The ghost of sysfs past

Posted Jul 31, 2010 2:57 UTC (Sat) by walovaton (guest, #57287) [Link]

Mmmm... really? what if there is no way to reproduce the bug with the official kernel because the application simply won't work on that setup? is there any hope for customers in this situation?.

Likewise, is there any support if I take a RHEL 5 box and update PHP to 5.2 or 5.3, or maybe if I decide to downgrade to PHP 4.3 (the same in RHEL 4) because it's really hard for us to test our huge web system and validate it against the newest version of PHP?.

If there is any link on the Red Hat website that explains this kind of scenarios it would be very handy for me and my company.

The ghost of sysfs past

Posted Jul 31, 2010 3:34 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

You are better off talking to a support technician directly for specific scenarios.

The ghost of sysfs past

Posted Jul 24, 2010 20:15 UTC (Sat) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link]

Obviously, I don't think deliberate incompatibility should be introduced, but I *really* don't think upstream should be worried about breaking an older vendor userland. The vendor is responsible for the kernel on their distribution, and isn't going to offer support for upstream kernels anyway. It seems like a giant non-argument to say that it even matters.

(personal opinion only)

The ghost of sysfs past

Posted Jul 24, 2010 23:50 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

Introducing kernel incompatibilities always results in you reducing the number of people who can test your distribution. Sometimes that's an acceptable tradeoff, but telling people who run Red Hat Enterprise Linux(tm) 5 that it's impossible for them to run a later kernel with their existing userspace sounds like a great way to reduce the number of people who can give you feedback for later releases.

The ghost of sysfs past

Posted Jul 27, 2010 8:33 UTC (Tue) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link]

RHEL 6 will be out this year, and RHEL users who want later features can use that. Don't hold back progress.

The ghost of sysfs past

Posted Jul 27, 2010 9:43 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Noone is holding back progress. Things can progress just fine with a bit more backward compatibility. Not everyone will be able to jump to new releases whenever they happen.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds