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