On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Tomas Fasth wrote: > kiko wrote: > > > Don't count on raid0145/0.9 going in anytime soon; the said powers don't > > reckon it's stable enough, to my amazement. Must be something I can't > > figure. > > I think the main reason is to not have a minor increment breaking the > toolchain shipped in certain dists. <tomas/> I know, but I disagree completely with this policy; anyone who has enough brains to run raid knows the only _stable_ raid is a raid 0.90. The old raid is somewhat broken AFAIK and therefore shouldn't be used. Why go on supporting it? It's not like every single user runs raid, anyway. Not that patching is much trouble. k
- Linux box locking up .. Jason A. Diegmueller
- Re: Linux box locking up .. Michael Sloan
- Re: Linux box locking up .. David Holl
- Re: Linux box locking up .. Tom Kunz
- RE: Linux box locking up .. Jason A. Diegmueller
- RE: Linux box locking up .. Tom Livingston
- Re: Linux box locking up .. Stephen Waters
- Re: Linux box locking up .. kiko
- Re: Linux box locking up .. Stephen Waters
- Re: Linux box locking up .. Tomas Fasth
- RE: Linux box locking up .. kiko
- RE: Linux box locking up .. Vincenzo Jon - IL
- RE: Linux box locking up .. Jason A. Diegmueller
- Re: Linux box locking up .. Mark Ferrell
- Re: Linux box locking up .. Mike Black
- Re: Linux box locking up .. Mark Ferrell
- RE: Linux box locking up .. Tom Livingston
- RE: Linux box locking up .. Jason A. Diegmueller
- Re: Linux box locking up .. HA Quoc Viet
- Re: Linux box locking up .. Mark Ferrell