linux-kernel - Re: [KORG] Re: kernel.org lies about latest -mm kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070108230556.5055b44c.khali@linux-fr.org>
Date:	Mon, 8 Jan 2007 23:05:56 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "J.H." <warthog9@...nel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	webmaster@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [KORG] Re: kernel.org lies about latest -mm kernel

Salut Willy,

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:37:58 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:31:50PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 09:02:59 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just evil suggestion, but if you contact someone else than HP, they
> > > > might be _very_ interested in taking HP's place and providing whatever
> > > > you need to get their name on www.kernel.org. Sun and IBM do such
> > > > monter machines too. That would not be very kind to HP, but it might
> > > > help getting hardware faster.
> > > 
> > > No, it would not be kind to HP.  They have supported us pretty well so 
> > > far, and as a consequence I really want to give them the right of first 
> > > refusal.  We're asking for a lot of equipment, and these things take 
> > > time.  This is all further complicated right now by the fact that we 
> > > probably won't get our 501(c)3 decision from IRS until mid-2007.
> > 
> > What's wrong with having _several_ vendors contributing hardware to
> > kernel.org? Hopefully HP is providing the hardware not just for the
> > fame but also because they know how much it is needed and they have an
> > interest in the Linux kernel development going well and smoothly.
> > 
> > HP should actually enjoy the cost being shared with another company. Or
> > was the HP hardware given in exhange of the promess that HP would be
> > the only hardware provider of kernel.org and that this would be loudly
> > advertised? I sure hope not, and I can't believe we're willing to wait
> > for half a year just to let HP provide the hardware if another vendor
> > is also willing to provide it and would be faster.
> > 
> > It's free software we're doing here, it should be natural to accept the
> > help of anyone who wants to help, and to share the costs where possible.
> 
> But it's also necessary to be fair with the donators and encourage them
> to give again. I agree that if we do not have any consideration for their
> implication, it might make them lose their motivations. If, as Peter said,
> they have been very supportive in the past, let's support them in turn.

I did _not_ suggest that we discourage HP from giving more hardware if
they wish to. And I didn't mean to show any lack of consideration for
HP's repeated donations to kernel.org in the past; sorry if it sounded
that way. I am really happy, as I think everyone else here is, that HP
supported kernel.org the way they did so far. That's not the point!

I am simply wondering what's the benefit of kernel.org sticking to a
single donator for their hardware, and quite frankly, I couldn't find a
reasonable answer. We should be happy if kernel.org can get more
hardware to solve the current bottlenecks. HP should be happy if they
don't have to pay for all the kernel.org hardware. Other companies may
be happy to help if their developers are affected by the performance
issues that we are experiencing at the moment.

Now, maybe no other company is actually interested in giving hardware
to run kernel.org, or what they are ready to offer doesn't fit the
needs, or maybe there are technical or administrative constraints that
only HP is currently able to fulfill. Again that's not the point. All I
say is that we shouldn't, IMVHO, set as a principle that only one
vendor should be allowed to provide the hardware that runs kernel.org.
It simply doesn't fit in the spirit of the software we are developing.

Just to make it very clear: I am not suggesting that we should start a
competition between various hardware vendors. It's cooperation I'm
thinking about. Again, because that's exactly what free software is all
about.

-- 
Jean Delvare
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/