John Burton wrote:
> Simple (in they eyes of the check writers :-), buy a *name* brand and it
> fails, its the name brand's problem and you chalk it up to experience.
> Buy a *noname* brand and it fails and its *your* problem because you
> accepted the risk of going with an unknown quantity - risk
Thomas Waldmann wrote:
> There is no problem with patching 2.2.11 or 2.2.12 or 2.2.13 with the 0824
> patches - I (and many other people) verified the rejects and there is no real
> problem - the stuff rejected simply already IS in the standard kernel.
>
> This is also the reason why there is no
Hi,
I found the following anouncement from Alan Cox intresting.
http://lwn.net/daily/2.2.13ac1.html
The part I found most intresting was:
>Features added that probably won't be going into 2.2. proper
>[...]
>o RAID 0.90
/N
--
N
