Re: kernel-ml is not for production use

2011-11-01 Thread Yasha Karant

On 11/01/2011 08:42 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Yasha Karantykar...@csusb.edu  wrote:

On 10/30/2011 03:02 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:



I should also note that kernel-ml is not for production use but it's
been quite stable and Alan has been doing a good job of keeping it up
to date. :-)

http://elrepo.org/tiki/kernel-ml

Akemi



[snip-

No, I was not referring to the mainline kernel available from
kernel.org. It was about the *kernel-ml* package from elrepo.org.  I
was hoping everybody would read the link I provided in my post before
using the kernel-ml package. Here once again:

http://elrepo.org/tiki/kernel-ml

In the Notes section:

These packages are provided As-Is with no implied warranty or
support. Using the kernel-ml may expose your system to security,
performance and/or data corruption issues. Since timely updates may
not be available from the ELRepo Project, the end user has the
ultimate responsibility for deciding whether to continue using the
kernel-ml packages in regular service.

That is what meant by not for production use. Of course you can use
it as far as you know what you are doing/using. The kernel-ml package
was intended for hardware testing that may not be covered by the kmod
packages.

However, further discussion regarding the ELRepo packages must go to
the elrepo mailing lists:

http://elrepo.org/tiki/MailingLists

Akemi


From:  https://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html

3. Limited Warranty. Except as specifically stated in this Section 3, a 
separate agreement with Red Hat, or a license for a particular 
component, to the maximum extent permitted under applicable law, the 
Programs and the components are provided and licensed as is without 
warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including the implied 
warranties of merchantability, non-infringement or fitness for a 
particular purpose.


AND further along in Section 3

Neither Red Hat nor its affiliates warrants that the functions contained 
in the Programs will meet your requirements or that the operation of the 
Programs will be entirely error free, appear or perform precisely as 
described in the accompanying documentation, or comply with regulatory 
requirements.


End quote.  Although mention is made of a particular vendor (due to this 
being a quote from the EULA of that vendor and thus fair use under 
copyright requires such attribution), the quote is for illustrative 
purposes.


How does the above lack of warranty from a commercial for-profit vendor 
differ from the These packages are provided As-Is with no implied 
warranty or support from el-repo or the similar disclaimer from SL? 
This is not a discussion of specific ElRepo packages, but a general 
question of interest to all users of packages advertised on the SL list 
-- ElRepo in this particular instance.


Yasha Karant


Re: kernel-ml is not for production use

2011-11-01 Thread Alan Bartlett
On 1 November 2011 16:42, Yasha Karant ykar...@csusb.edu wrote:

snip

 How does the above lack of warranty from a commercial for-profit vendor
 differ from the These packages are provided As-Is with no implied warranty
 or support from el-repo or the similar disclaimer from SL? This is not a
 discussion of specific ElRepo packages, but a general question of interest
 to all users of packages advertised on the SL list -- ElRepo in this
 particular instance.

 Yasha Karant

sed 's/ElRepo/ELRepo/'


Re: kernel-ml is not for production use

2011-11-01 Thread Dag Wieers

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011, Yasha Karant wrote:

How does the above lack of warranty from a commercial for-profit vendor 
differ from the These packages are provided As-Is with no implied warranty 
or support from el-repo or the similar disclaimer from SL? This is not a 
discussion of specific ElRepo packages, but a general question of interest to 
all users of packages advertised on the SL list -- ElRepo in this particular 
instance.


Yasha,

I am certain that even you must understand the difference between paid-for 
support by the largest Linux vendor on the planet for a kernel run by 
tens of millions, and a handful of people providing an alternative kernel 
(that could be useful to some users).


Even with the legalese. I don't know what you are getting at though.

If you think running kernel-ml in production, feel free to do so on your 
own terms, the ELRepo project however does not advise to use kernel-ml for 
production use and doesn't want people to assume that it provides the same 
maturity, reliability, security or support as the upstream kernel 
releases. http://elrepo.org/tiki/kernel-ml


Can we now please end this thread ? If you like to continue your own 
thoughts on certain matters, feel free to do so on your own blog. I 
however don't see the merits of picking on people's words.


Kind regards,
--
-- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, i...@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]