On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 08:34:58AM -0700, Yasha Karant wrote: > [...] -- the actual name > of TUV, that evidently is taboo on this list, [...]
Evidently? It's complete nonsense to NOT use the name of "TUV" here or at whatever place, as long as you don't say things about SL in relation to TUV and/or their products that are illegal. I thought only the CentOS community was (for no good reason) paranoid. In the time I created and released X/OS Linux, being also rebuild of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3/4/5 sources, I did mention Red Hat, RHEL, etc., but only as far as appropriate and allowed of course. > Nonetheless, once a major change (e.g., NFTables replacing iptables) is > done in the base source, the production enterprise version must reflect > the change -- and in less than a decade. Why less than a decade? > Unless there is a fully backward compatible set of APIs, new > applications and revisions typically use the current not historical > APIs. Presumably, there will be NFTables features that application > developers will use that have no iptables backport. > > Thus -- how long is the delay? Typically, are two major releases (e.g., > NFTables in EL8) the usual delay? Does anyone have historical data from > EL/TUV? Fedora 20 seems to use the 3.11 kernel, so it won't have a kernel with NFTables. RHEL 7 is already being developed (and in alpha stage as far as I've heard) and will most likely have a kernel <= 3.11, so this makes the statement that "EL7 probably won't either" very trustworthy. There are no statistics about "delays" etc. needed to just see that RHEL 7 won't use a kernel that supports NFTables. So, there is no artificial "delay" created by RH to postpone things in RHEL, it's just "common sense" when someone says this about NFTables in relattion to RHEL 7. -- -- Jos Vos <j...@xos.nl> -- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 -- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204
