Hi All--
"Robert G. Brown" wrote:
>
[snip]
> You don't think 2.0.>>36<< is supportable, although it is so stable it
> is basically moribund and abandoned, but you think that 2.2.(x \approx
> 5) (a brand new "stable" release) is, in spite of the fact that your
> existing 5.2 release runs 2.0.36 flawlessly in nearly all SMP boxes in
> existence (including the Dells under primary discussion, never forget!)
> while installing 2.2.x requires upgrading a half dozen key systems
> components irreversibly, some of which are >>still<< broken for 2.2 in
> the most recent "experimental" 2.2.x RPM's? Brother, we have very
> different definitions of the word supportable and stable...
>
Interesting. I guess I won't using the 2.2.x kernel when I install
Linux on my UnixWare system at home.
[more snippage]
>
> Perhaps Red Hat doesn't value their business relationship with Dell.
> Perhaps Red Hat doesn't care about, umm, "irritating" the customers who
> buy SMP Dell systems to run their ISP or whatever only to find that it
> is pre-installed with a UP kernel, that no instructions are provided for
> actually using the other processors, and that when they call RH for help
> the service people get snooty and say "We don't do SMP". Perhaps Red
> Hat doesn't care about its customers? I hope not...
>
> Obviously you guys are very well defended on this issue, but in cold,
> hard business terms, it would cost Red Hat on the order of ten
> man-hours, max, to put together a "custom" 2.0.36 SMP version of the 5.2
> CD for Dell's private use. It would cost you no more time than that to
> add a 2.0.36-0.7smp RPM to the CD (and add an "install kernel source?"
> and a "beware, try-at-your-own-risk-and-join-linux-smp-for-help install
> smp kernel" question to the original install). It would cost even less
> than this to provide a drop-in smp solution (a downloadable RPM) for
> those persons who call requesting it, and I'll bet such a thing already
> exists anyway (which would reduce the cost still further, but your
> service people still need to be directed to use it). I personally think
> that the expected profits from such an investment, in customer
> satisfaction and goodwill translated into increased sales on Dell SMP
> platforms alone (not to mention the gazillion other SMP server platforms
> assembed by folks all over the country), are likely worth it. But I'm
> not a Red Hat manager and RH clearly has problems providing adequate
> support as it is, so you could be right not to do it...
>
I bought the Deluxe RH 5.2 distribution, with 3 CDs, and have installed
it on three very different systems (486 SCSI, P100 UP, P200 UP) with
little pain, mostly related to pretty much obsolete hardware (lack of a
PCI bus on the 486 being the most notable;-(). I read the fine print on
the box/in the manual, and found it interesting that I would have to get
in touch with McMillan, not Red Hat, for support. Contract law not
being my forte, I assumed I'd be getting no help whatsoever from RH,
McMillan or anyone else listed on the box, and just dug in. I perhaps
have an advantage, in having used pretty much every variety of unix over
the last 17 years. I did spend a lot of time reading scripts, though.
..
I wouldn't say that the installation process was flawless or transparent
on any of the three systems. But I've had worse problems installing
W95/98/NT ... and there aren't any scripts to read for those
installations.
OK. I have a UnixWare box at home: Micronics M54Pe motherboard, dual
P100s; Adaptec 2940W (not 2940UW, notice), with one 4.3GB and two 1.0GB
drives attached, plus a CDROM and a zip drive; #9 Motion 330 2mb Video.
I'm dumping the video card and replacing it with a Diamond Stealth S220,
4mb. The reason I joined the SMP list was to see what problems I was
going to have running SMP on my UW system once I converted it to Linux.
[N.B.: I *like* UnixWare, but don't like SCO, and don't fancy paying
$600 bucks to upgrade from UW2.03 to UW7 to maintain the same license
I've already got. *Plus* the system hangs every 2-5 days & must be
rebooted, forcefully;-(] Now, I've hacked both BSD & SYSV kernels, and
done quite a lot of it, too, but that's not where my interests are these
days. *But* if necessary I'd like to be able to if forced. An option
button in the install process seems like a *trivial* addition,
especially since RH installs a bunch of weirdo stuff/daemons I didn't
want if I checked the `install everything' button. ...
So, if Red Hat came out with a new Deluxe CD set tomorrow, offering
UP/SMP installation options and optional installation of source--I'd buy
it in a minute. When I wipe my UW system, it would delight me if I
could pop a CD in and install a working 2.0.36 SMP kernel. It would
delight me even more if I could push another button and tell it to
install the complete SMP kernel source in exactly the configuration
required to build the kernel I just installed. The install process
could check, too, to see if there's more than one SCSI controller on the
system, and warn the user if there's a possible conflict.
So, Red Hat, what's the big deal about providing an extra kernel on the
CD, and a little button on the installer? You provide the CD set, and
I'll buy it. Guaranteed repeat sale. What kind of a business risk is
that?
I bet a lot more people read those manuals than you think, and even read
and pay attention to warnings like, ``try SMP at your own risk.''
<now-if-i-could-get-that-damn-backspace-key-to-behave-right-i'd-die-happy>-ly
y'rs,
Ivan;-)
----------------------------------------------
Ivan Van Laningham
Callware Technologies, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pauahtun.org
See also:
http://www.foretec.com/python/workshops/1998-11/proceedings.html
Army Signal Corps: Cu Chi, Class of '70
----------------------------------------------
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
