On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Always Learning wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 09:51 -0400, Digimer wrote: > >> Red Hat is a business, and made a simple business decision. Maintaining >> Xen support would have meant maintaining a very large set of patches. >> They made the decision that the effort (and money) needed to maintain >> Xen outside of the mainline kernel was not worth it. > > Perhaps a silly question, but why maintain patches ? Why not compile a > new version and discard all the patches ? Patches are a messy manner to > maintain programmes.
That's fine if you just want to jump ship to a new version. But what if the new version breaks some things, or changes behaviour in a way you don't want, or removes a feature. Your choice effectively becomes do I back port things I want to an old version, or maintain patches that takes current back to the state I want. > Which is better on C5 and C6 ? That's a matter for google, and not necessarily a simple one to answer. As was said, Xen was the standard option with C5, and KVM was with C6. jh _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
