> I don't know. Is there any significance to the fact that you cannot get
> even ONE for a MP3000?
But the LCS3172 driver provides a virtual device to the S/390 that
smells like one...
On Fri, 2001-12-28 at 10:22, Phil Payne wrote:
>
> Is there any significance in the announcement that G4/G5/G6 now a
> minimum of one standard OSA adapter?
I don't know. Is there any significance to the fact that you cannot get
even ONE for a MP3000?
--
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
[EMA
> Rather, QDIO is a hardware feature, for which IBM does not publish
the
> programming interface. The interface is unique to IBM S/390. And it
is used
> by more OS's than just Linux. Publishing the interface for Linux
also
> publishes the interface for all other OS.
ISTR Amdahl paid a great deal
> Let's say you ran a large, profitable company like IBM.
Software revenues around $12 billion.
> You're risking a lot in supporting something like Linux.
OTOH - IBM achieved its utter dominance of the industry in the late
1960s using a public domain operating system.
> Contrary to popular bel
> This is not merely a documentation string! Also, who says that
> a module built for 2.4.9 won't work with 2.4.9-4GB? What patches
> are these that warrant changing the label??
The good thing with the dash-level in the kernel IMHO is that you keep
the old set of kernel modules, and you can
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, John Summerfield wrote:
> There is a good reason for the way RH names its kernels. ...
SuSE is following RedHat's lead
and making it harder for the customer to run third party modules.
I'm wondering if "version information on all symbols" might help.
That's the CONFIG_M
> My mistake, I confused myself. Time to change feet...
>
> I think what I was getting at is the packaging/kernel versioning used by
> RedHat, which means that their 2.4.9 kernel is not called '2.4.9', but
> '2.4.9-something special', which means you can't fit a version-labelled
> module into it.
don't have time for this!
... Shouldn't have started in the first place.
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/27/2001 01:00:38 PM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Dennis Wicks/infosvcs/CDG)
Sub
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Dennis G. Wicks wrote:
> I think that most installations where Linux/390 is being installed
> or tried have already accepted that "large business risk" by installing and
> using IBM hardware and software in the first place. All of which is
> patented, copyrighted and licensed
hursday, December 27, 2001 12:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
>
> Gregg,
>
> I am not 100% sure if you're talking about the Slackware port only, or
> something else that goes with it. You also didn't mention any names
of the
>
debugging problems at a time when the IBM support folks were much less
skilled and helpful than they are today (Hi Mike!).
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Florian La Roche [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 7:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for
Florian La Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Are there some "history" pages about these discussions?
The entire history of VM, including Melinda Varian's "VM and
the Community" paper (an excellantly researched history, based
on years of interviews with key players) is online. The VM
community literall
-Original Message-
From: Gregg C Levine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 9:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
-snip-
Personal to :Mike Kershaw if you are listening, I'd like to demo on
that emulator thingie the port of Slackware
business. What will they decide to drop
from the next release?
Henry Schaffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 12/26/2001 04:18:18 PM
Please respond to Linux on 390 Port <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: Dennis Wicks/infosvcs/CDG)
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
> And among the "mainframe" people are some who remember the great OCO war of
> the late 80's, early 90's between the VM world and IBM. A compromise (of
> sorts) was reached where that part of VM that had always been source code
> would remain so and so would new features that were not related to
Vic wrote:
On this list, there seem to be more Linux people than "mainframe"
people (or
maybe the Linux folk are more vocal), so you'd be forgiven for
thinking that
popular opinion goes in favour of RedHat. But it's been discussed
in the
past that most Linux/390 o
> o IBM evidently has issues other than the driver code itself
>that prevent it releasing the driver code source
Ah, but we don't need the entire driver... just the pieces that interface w/ the
kernel... let the "super secret" stuff stay OCO... this just requires the design
of
t -- it's time to get productive again. Sorry for the
distraction.
Cheers,
Vic Cross
- Original Message -
From: "Alan Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
> > I lik
TED]] On Behalf Of
> Rick Troth
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 8:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
>
> > No vendor ships Linus base kernel. Linus base kernel doesn't pass
anyones
> > QA test suite. Linus role is to put out c
dnesday, December 26, 2001 7:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
>
> > I like RedHat's words, but the term "RedHat standard kernel" bothers
me a
> > bit (isn't there only supposed to be *one* standard kernel?). And,
the
>
> No vendor ships Linus base kernel. Linus base kernel doesn't pass anyones
> QA test suite. Linus role is to put out clean well designed code and to
> ensure development takes the right paths. The vendors then all add on
> top of that various things including bug fixes which while they may fix
>
Em Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 08:00:49PM -0500, Nick Gimbrone escreveu:
> is no good reason for this being the case... as it would have been
> possible to build the OSA driver in such a way as to have its OCO parts
> separate from the kernel's internals! Just bad design... which the
> customers suffer u
> As long as
> RedHat persists in producing their non-standard kernels, they just need to
> make sure that IBM sees them a little while before release to ensure that
> their nasty OSA driver works with it--and they go to market together.
You miss the point completely... If someone wants to make a
> I like RedHat's words, but the term "RedHat standard kernel" bothers me a
> bit (isn't there only supposed to be *one* standard kernel?). And, the
> point has been made before, that IBM could be a bit more flexible.
No vendor ships Linus base kernel. Linus base kernel doesn't pass anyones
QA t
Henry wrote:
> having something OCO means it can't
> be updated for new kernel releases, it can't be investigated when
> problems are happening, it depends on IBM for everything. That is a
> real business risk for people who depend on OSA cards for 390 data
> communications.
Risk? I don't think
: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 5:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Mark writes:
>That's an interesting non sequitur.
I don't think its a non sequitur - having something OCO means it can't
be updated for new kernel releases, it can't be investi
ess risk for people who depend on OSA cards for 390 data
communications.
--henry schaffer
>Mark Post
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:42 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
&
That's an interesting non sequitur.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
> Remember, the ONLY Linux kernel OCO code IBM supplies, to my know
> Remember, the ONLY Linux kernel OCO code IBM supplies, to my knowlede, is
> for OSA cards!
And what about next month, or next year. In the PC world I can rip out a
card if a vendor screws me, and go elsewhere. Its a $200 annoyance not
a million dollar business risk.
Alan
I'm not speaking IBM as a corporation, just expressing my own observations.
As IBM supplies the great bulk of its S/390 modifications as source
patches, including CKD dasd, I don't see OCO for OSA cards as a Linux
issue, per se, nor an "open source" issue.
Rather, QDIO is a hardware feature, for
> It just goes to show that despite all the Peace, Love and Linux BS,
> IBM still doesn't grok Open Source.
Or city rules on graffiti 8)
> not the silver bullet of all IT, and it is not the most stable operating
> system in existence (nor even close). Would you not want to have a little
> quality control?
"Mummy knows best"
What are you going to do if IBM turns around says "we're bored of this OCO
hassle we are dropping all supp
Under that premise the dasd drivers etc. should also be OCO. Why
is a comms driver written by IBM different to a dasd driver also
written by IBM? (Yes, the dasd driver does have to run as part of
the kernel and therefore must be source.) We've already seen the
benefits of having access to the sour
It just goes to show that despite all the Peace, Love and Linux BS,
IBM still doesn't grok Open Source.
-Original Message-
From: Snyder, Bradley (LNG) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 10:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Message-
From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
> It is a question of how IBM can not only reduce their own costs (to
currently
> produce a separate driver for a subset of kernels of
> It is a question of how IBM can not only reduce their own costs (to currently
> produce a separate driver for a subset of kernels of interest to their
> customers), but also make sure that the driver exists for all kernels that their
> customers run. Looks to me like it is a win/win situation fo
, 2001 8:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Hmm. As John Campbell said back in July "Our Irony is special, you see. It
goes to 11." It's almost laughable to see a Red Hat employee arguing in
favor of patents, and contrast his comments to the ones Kerr
against being careful with what I wish
for to the contrary. I just don't know how I can help. :(
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 3:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
>
> Just so everyone is clear: We (IBM) do not like to resort to OCO
could have fooled me.
> but in this world it is the only way to protect the intellectual property
> present in the drivers.
Oh you mean your network card has something that all the hundreds of others
don't have ? Your patent dep
> Just so everyone is clear: We (IBM) do not like to resort to OCO, but in
> this world it is the only way to protect the intellectual property present
> in the drivers. If the drivers weren't OCO, anyone could step up to the
> challenge to provide support. But, when all the shouting is over, IB
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
> > Nope, but I'm free to go buy some piece of hardware that isn't tied up
> > with intellectual property "issues".
>
> Tha
Just so everyone is clear: We (IBM) do not like to resort to OCO, but in
this world it is the only way to protect the intellectual property present
in the drivers. If the drivers weren't OCO, anyone could step up to the
challenge to provide support. But, when all the shouting is over, IBM or
its
esday, December 18, 2001 4:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
-snip-
I think the fastest way to solve this problem is to volunteer a team of
programmers to go to an IBM facility, sign away their first-born children in
terms of NDAs, and rewrite the OSA and QDIO drivers to
> Nope, but I'm free to go buy some piece of hardware that isn't tied up
> with intellectual property "issues".
That's always your decision to make. If the objective is complete purity of
essence, then we can sit around and theorize or select a different solution
that meets the immediate needs.
W
> -Original Message-
> From: David Boyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
>
>
>
> Keep in mind that Red Hat and Linux are not synonymous
> (marketing efforts
> ... it's a question of
> where we want IBM to put their resources, and taking a developer away from
> new function to fix old function or restructure a bunch of drivers won't
> help the overall effort much. Then there's testing, etc, etc, etc -- it's
> not a free process to get something like th
> Open Source has lots of benefits for code review, bug hunting and testing.
> All those benefits are not possible for the OCO modules and thus hinder
> these better development practises.
Which is why we have brought up several times to split these network drivers
into a common part supplied in
> Alan Altmark made a very cogent comment in another forum: it's a question of
> where we want IBM to put their resources, and taking a developer away from
> new function to fix old function or restructure a bunch of drivers won't
Agreed.
> help the overall effort much. Then there's testing, etc
David Boyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Different issue -- let's not confuse them. The device driver
> issue also
> exists under VM for the OSA cards -- it has nothing to do
> with VM or LPAR or
> bare metal.
True. The problem also exists for the new VM "Guest LAN"
facility and hardware HiperS
Exactly. That is what "collaboration" is supposed to mean, isn't it?
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Schlehuber, Patrick
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
I really do not
Whoa, folks. Flamethrowers on idle...
> If IBM wants their customers to run Linux ONLY under VM on
> 390 hardware,
> they should come right out and say so. Then I guess we'd
> bite the bullet,
> license VM and start learning it.
Different issue -- let's not confuse them. The device driver issue
Hi,
Just to let you know that RedHat and IBM are working closely together to
provide
the right levels of oco-modules fitting for the latest RedHat distribution
(and yes,
both sides see it as their responsibility to provide a working solution):
Well, there seems to have been some synchronisatio
From: Dorsey James - jdorse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
okay, you made me pipe up again.
Since the OCO modules are IBM's responsibility ( and can't be RedHat's since
they can&
Services
309-821-5299 wk
309-821-4818 fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Dorsey James - jdorse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 12:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
okay, you made me pipe up again.
Since the OCO modules
ho own the damn code.
If you want it in RedHat, it'll be open sourced.. and pronto.
If not, then bitch at IBM.
> -Original Message-
> From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LCS
, December 18, 2001 11:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Hello from Gregg C Levine normally with Jedi Knight Computers
Uh one question here is till bouncing around in my mind, at hyperdrive
speeds. These are OCO modules. Are we certain, that they have been
tested against
r 18, 2001 11:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
>
> I am with Randy,
>
>
> 5 minutes after it is released, we will have it installed. Nothing
like the
> life of a propeller head!!
>
> Patrick E. Schlehuber
> Web Services
>
, Randolph W. (LNG)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Can any of the IBM'ers on this list tell me when or if the lcs driver for
2.4.9 may be made available? I have a group of folks at my site chomping a
From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
Red Hat has stated that they will _not_ be including an OCO modules from IBM
in their distribution(s). The only place you will be able to get them is
ubject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ?
I must have missed something, where is this documented?
Rich Smrcina
Sytek Services, Inc.
Milwaukee, WI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Catch the WAVV! Stay for Requirements and the Free f
Red Hat has stated that they will _not_ be including an OCO modules from IBM
in their distribution(s). The only place you will be able to get them is
from IBM's DeveloperWorks site whenever they become available.
Mark Post
-Original Message-
From: Shumate, Randolph W. (LNG)
[mailto:[EMA
I must have missed something, where is this documented?
Rich Smrcina
Sytek Services, Inc.
Milwaukee, WI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Catch the WAVV! Stay for Requirements and the Free for All!
Update your S/390 skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price.
WAVV 2002 in Cincinnati (Fort M
62 matches
Mail list logo
