On Thursday 08 July 2010, Seth Bardash wrote:
To the Linux Community at Large:
I reported to this list back in January, 2010 that the standard x86_64
kernel, when built from the src.rpm and modified for AMD K8 / K10
Extensions would not build. I reported this here and to Red Hat via
Bugzilla
On Friday 09 July 2010, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 at 8:16pm, Whit Blauvelt wrote
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:35:47PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
It has been stated many times and on many fora that Red Hat's bugzilla
is not a mechanism for support. They are under
On 7/8/2010 6:25 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 07/08/10 2:39 PM, Seth Bardash wrote:
To the Linux Community at Large:
I reported to this list back in January, 2010 that the standard x86_64
kernel, when built from the src.rpm and modified for ...
I don't understand how you think that this is a
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 at 8:32am, Seth Bardash wrote
My intent was to inform and hear from people that had similar issues and
to learn what they might have done to work around them. Not to cause a
debate on business practices, criticize Red Hat or inflame the Centos
community.
I appreciate your
And I'd still be interested (as in, genuinely curious, not skeptical) to
hear what sorts of applications benefit from optimized kernels (HPC? I/O
intense?) and what kind of performance increases one can get.
I'd be interested as well. I can see HPC applications potentially
benefiting but what
To the Linux Community at Large:
I reported to this list back in January, 2010 that the standard x86_64
kernel, when built from the src.rpm and modified for AMD K8 / K10
Extensions would not build. I reported this here and to Red Hat via
Bugzilla ID number 558367. RH AS / Centos 5.3 worked
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 at 3:39pm, Seth Bardash wrote
I am beginning to wonder if Red Hat is getting too big? Or that it just
does not care. Other ideas less pleasant come to mind Today, the
old bug was still marked as new (6+ months and counting). I entered a
new bug report for RH 5.5 for
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:35:47PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
It has been stated many times and on many fora that Red Hat's bugzilla is
not a mechanism for support. They are under no obligation to address
issues raised there. Is it nice when they do? Absolutely.
There are two
On 07/08/10 2:39 PM, Seth Bardash wrote:
To the Linux Community at Large:
I reported to this list back in January, 2010 that the standard x86_64
kernel, when built from the src.rpm and modified for ...
I don't understand how you think that this is a bug. you modified
something and it broke.
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
This is an implicit contract that runs across all open
source software projects.
implicit contract ?
You know 'Whit' -- you deserve congratulations
You were just promoted into the 'hot air windbag' 'internet
lawyer' 'I am entitled to it, just
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 at 8:16pm, Whit Blauvelt wrote
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:35:47PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
It has been stated many times and on many fora that Red Hat's bugzilla is
not a mechanism for support. They are under no obligation to address
issues raised there. Is it
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 08:16:05PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
Besides, the poster here is making a serious point about Red Hat losing
sales.
If the OP is making a serious point about RH losing sales, perhaps he
should tell RedHat about it, instead of posting trollbait to an
unrelated mailing
12 matches
Mail list logo
