On 5/29/07, Ralf Baechle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also consider that some architectures pass parts of the arguments in
registers which on yet others are passed in memory. Sometimes padding
arguments are needed and many more oddities. Similar for results.
Inescapably such a program is a
On 5/29/07, Ralf Baechle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also consider that some architectures pass parts of the arguments in
registers which on yet others are passed in memory. Sometimes padding
arguments are needed and many more oddities. Similar for results.
Inescapably such a program is a perment
Someone finally noticed that my program that uses ptrace only works on i386..
and, by the looks of it, there is no portable way to refer to the
registers of a
user_regs_struct when inspecting a system call.
I will probably end up making a header file for each architecture that
defines where
in
Someone finally noticed that my program that uses ptrace only works on i386..
and, by the looks of it, there is no portable way to refer to the
registers of a
user_regs_struct when inspecting a system call.
I will probably end up making a header file for each architecture that
defines where
in
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a
simpler explanation?
Says the master of conspiracy.
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a
simpler explanation?
Says the master of conspiracy.
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
" We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software."
--IE: Once you release the code under the GPL, it becomes the
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.
--IE: Once you release the code under the GPL, it becomes the
On 2/20/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to read that.
I guess that was a stupid thing to say. Ok, fine people, Michael is
ok with me posting this, so enjoy:
http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/chat-with-michael-k-edwards.html
There ya go.
On 2/20/07, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to read that.
I guess that was a stupid thing to say. Ok, fine people, Michael is
ok with me posting this, so enjoy:
http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/chat-with-michael-k-edwards.html
There ya go.
Trent
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours
I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter
might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from
spouting conspiracy stuff and, although I don't agree with all of
them, I think he has some
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And for those reading along at home, _surely_ you understand the
meanings of "ambiguities in an offer of contract must be construed
against the offeror", "'derivative work' and 'license' are terms of
art in copyright law", and "not a
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, dear, I'm just not interested in convincing you if you can't be
bothered to look back in the thread and Google a bit. Think of it as
a penny ante, which is pretty cheap in a card game with billion-dollar
table stakes.
Well, with
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we put the gamesmanship on "low" here for a moment? Ask yourself
which is more likely: am I a crank who spends years researching the
legal background of the GPL solely for the purpose of ranting
incoherently on debian-legal and LKML,
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't have to argue these points, because they're obvious to anyone
who cares to do their own homework. Appellate court decisions _are_
the law, my friend; read 'em and weep.
Hang on, you're actually debating that you have to abide
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is no legal meaning to "combining" two works of authorship under
the Berne Convention or any national implementation thereof. If you
"compile" or "collect" them, you're in one area of law, and if you
create a work that "adapts" or
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bah. Show us a citation to treaty, statute, or case law, anywhere in
the world, Mr. Consensus-Reality.
It's a given.. are you seriously contending that if you combine two
copyright works you are not obliged to conform with the
On 2/20/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is no such thing as the "combined work". If I put a DVD of The Phantom
Menace in the same box as a DVD of The Big Lebowski, the box is not a
"combined work".
If you can't even agree on that the legal concept of a combined work
exists
On 2/20/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no such thing as the combined work. If I put a DVD of The Phantom
Menace in the same box as a DVD of The Big Lebowski, the box is not a
combined work.
If you can't even agree on that the legal concept of a combined work
exists then
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bah. Show us a citation to treaty, statute, or case law, anywhere in
the world, Mr. Consensus-Reality.
It's a given.. are you seriously contending that if you combine two
copyright works you are not obliged to conform with the conditions
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no legal meaning to combining two works of authorship under
the Berne Convention or any national implementation thereof. If you
compile or collect them, you're in one area of law, and if you
create a work that adapts or recasts
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have to argue these points, because they're obvious to anyone
who cares to do their own homework. Appellate court decisions _are_
the law, my friend; read 'em and weep.
Hang on, you're actually debating that you have to abide by
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we put the gamesmanship on low here for a moment? Ask yourself
which is more likely: am I a crank who spends years researching the
legal background of the GPL solely for the purpose of ranting
incoherently on debian-legal and LKML,
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, dear, I'm just not interested in convincing you if you can't be
bothered to look back in the thread and Google a bit. Think of it as
a penny ante, which is pretty cheap in a card game with billion-dollar
table stakes.
Well, with that
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And for those reading along at home, _surely_ you understand the
meanings of ambiguities in an offer of contract must be construed
against the offeror, 'derivative work' and 'license' are terms of
art in copyright law, and not a valid
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours
I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter
might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from
spouting conspiracy stuff and, although I don't agree with all of
them, I think he has some
e code.
Is that so?
Whether or not this would be laughed out of court or not will very
much depend on the local legal precedents (and Trent Waddington has
quoted some very interesting legal cases based on US court decisions,
Wow? I did? Really? I must have been sleep typing.
Trent
-
To unsubscrib
.
Is that so?
Whether or not this would be laughed out of court or not will very
much depend on the local legal precedents (and Trent Waddington has
quoted some very interesting legal cases based on US court decisions,
Wow? I did? Really? I must have been sleep typing.
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from
On 2/18/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you can
read that and still tolerate the stench of the FSF's argument that
linking against readline means they 0wn your source code, you have a
stronger stomach than I.
Such a strange attitude.. to go to all this effort to quote
On 2/18/07, David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
by this same logic the EULA's that various commercial vendors use are
completely valid,
it doesn't matter what the intent is if it's not a legal thing to require.
Yes, it does matter.. the author of the work has defined the terms
under which
On 2/17/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think that's grey at all. I think it's perfectly clear that linking
cannot create a derivative work. No automated process can -- it takes
creativity to create a derivative work. (That doesn't mean that just because
you can link A to
On 2/17/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that's grey at all. I think it's perfectly clear that linking
cannot create a derivative work. No automated process can -- it takes
creativity to create a derivative work. (That doesn't mean that just because
you can link A to B,
On 2/18/07, David Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
by this same logic the EULA's that various commercial vendors use are
completely valid,
it doesn't matter what the intent is if it's not a legal thing to require.
Yes, it does matter.. the author of the work has defined the terms
under which you
On 2/18/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you can
read that and still tolerate the stench of the FSF's argument that
linking against readline means they 0wn your source code, you have a
stronger stomach than I.
Such a strange attitude.. to go to all this effort to quote
On 2/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As others have pointed out, NVidia and ATI think they're in an OK spot with
the way *they* do *their* module,
Man, your sentence is so vague here that I almost don't feel the need
to correct you, almost. I don't think NVIDIA or ATI
On 2/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As others have pointed out, NVidia and ATI think they're in an OK spot with
the way *they* do *their* module,
Man, your sentence is so vague here that I almost don't feel the need
to correct you, almost. I don't think NVIDIA or ATI think
On 2/16/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's written in black and white, in the license.
Please point me to where it says I cannot load proprietary modules in
the Kernel.
It doesn't. It does, however, say you can't distribute your module
unless you make it available under the same terms
On 2/16/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is only because of the terms of GPL. Morally, as many here have
pointed out this should fall into the same category.
I say it does. If you have the ability, and enjoy Linux, you should
try and make the time to contribute some code or other
On 2/16/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, that's the FSF marketing fluff you've been taught to recite.
In the context of the Linux kernel, I'm referring to the original reason
why Linus chose the GPL for the Linux kernel.
Great.. The reason why Greg KH, the guy who wrote the bit
On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, the people who are being worms are the people who are trying to
use the GPL as a club to coerce people into not exercising the rights the
GPL gave them. The people trying to change the rules in the middle of the
game are the worms,
On 2/15/07, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I assume ATI's lawyers think its legal, as it's been a year and
a half since I first brought this questionable act to their
attention.
Lawyers don't think X is legal.. that's not how lawyers think. If
ATI's lawyers have advised ATI on this at
On 2/15/07, Xavier Bestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But that's not the case with VJ's drivers, which are apparently solely
for linux, so should be distributed under the GPL.
In any case, you're free to use any driver, regardless of license..
copyright does not cover use, only "copying" and
On 2/15/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And as I understand it, an important principle in out community is
freedom. If vj wants to take a particular moral/ethical stance, then
he should be free to do that. Of course he will have to live with any
consequences, as do we all.
Yes, and
On 2/15/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And as I understand it, an important principle in out community is
freedom. If vj wants to take a particular moral/ethical stance, then
he should be free to do that. Of course he will have to live with any
consequences, as do we all.
Yes, and
On 2/15/07, Xavier Bestel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that's not the case with VJ's drivers, which are apparently solely
for linux, so should be distributed under the GPL.
In any case, you're free to use any driver, regardless of license..
copyright does not cover use, only copying and most,
On 2/15/07, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume ATI's lawyers think its legal, as it's been a year and
a half since I first brought this questionable act to their
attention.
Lawyers don't think X is legal.. that's not how lawyers think. If
ATI's lawyers have advised ATI on this at
On 2/16/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the people who are being worms are the people who are trying to
use the GPL as a club to coerce people into not exercising the rights the
GPL gave them. The people trying to change the rules in the middle of the
game are the worms,
On 2/16/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, that's the FSF marketing fluff you've been taught to recite.
In the context of the Linux kernel, I'm referring to the original reason
why Linus chose the GPL for the Linux kernel.
Great.. The reason why Greg KH, the guy who wrote the bit of
On 2/16/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is only because of the terms of GPL. Morally, as many here have
pointed out this should fall into the same category.
I say it does. If you have the ability, and enjoy Linux, you should
try and make the time to contribute some code or other
On 2/16/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's written in black and white, in the license.
Please point me to where it says I cannot load proprietary modules in
the Kernel.
It doesn't. It does, however, say you can't distribute your module
unless you make it available under the same terms as
On 2/15/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..] then it is less clear what people believe
Another area where it is less clear what people believe is if you are
distributing the module separately to the kernel, but, as I understand
it, vj says he is not.
But of course the person who's
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am well aware of what Greg KHs position is, in fact he is the reason
I started the whole rant. This is only a plea to the "higher
authorities". Linus, please save Linux!
Oh boy. Guess what?
$ head -3 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class
What:
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If adding closed drivers to Linux is illegal, I am perfectly fine with
that. Just say so. I am not at a dead-end yet, until you make that
statement. Once you make that statement, then all bets are off. I am
betting that most companies will not even
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You don't get it do you.
I think everyone on the list was thinking the same thing about you.
We are only _using_ Linux.
Yes, I think we all can see that.
Using our source code would not benefit anybody but our competitors.
Without knowing what
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This has nothing to do with politics. I am not a Linux contributor.
Here-in lies the problem. I am one of the few people willing to state
openly that I wish those who can, would use their legal claims to stop
people like you from writing proprietary
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The drivers which we have written over the last three years are suddenly
under threat.
[..]
The fact that Linux is becoming more and more closed is very very alarming.
Sigh. Someone remind me of the rules against "politics" on the list
before I get
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The drivers which we have written over the last three years are suddenly
under threat.
[..]
The fact that Linux is becoming more and more closed is very very alarming.
Sigh. Someone remind me of the rules against politics on the list
before I get into
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has nothing to do with politics. I am not a Linux contributor.
Here-in lies the problem. I am one of the few people willing to state
openly that I wish those who can, would use their legal claims to stop
people like you from writing proprietary
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't get it do you.
I think everyone on the list was thinking the same thing about you.
We are only _using_ Linux.
Yes, I think we all can see that.
Using our source code would not benefit anybody but our competitors.
Without knowing what
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If adding closed drivers to Linux is illegal, I am perfectly fine with
that. Just say so. I am not at a dead-end yet, until you make that
statement. Once you make that statement, then all bets are off. I am
betting that most companies will not even
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am well aware of what Greg KHs position is, in fact he is the reason
I started the whole rant. This is only a plea to the higher
authorities. Linus, please save Linux!
Oh boy. Guess what?
$ head -3 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class
What:
On 2/15/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..] then it is less clear what people believe
Another area where it is less clear what people believe is if you are
distributing the module separately to the kernel, but, as I understand
it, vj says he is not.
But of course the person who's
On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel,
play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in
'printf(license)'?
Here I was thinking the rules were: all modules must be GPL and the
jerks who
On 2/2/07, Jon Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok. I totally dig the *idea* here - I mean, this issue has been ongoing
for a long time now. But I'd like to see a few comments as to whether we
need a technological mechanism here to enforce the obvious. To me, it
just seems totally obvious (any
On 2/2/07, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I started working on one a while ago but I ran out of time to
dedicate to the project. My schedule is opening up again, though, so
I plan to start working on it again. At this point I have most of
the actual loader code written, the problem is
On 2/1/07, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not all of them.
It seems it's kosher to rewrite a corp GPL driver but not a "community" one.
As I said, Greg didn't say it was rude to write a new driver without consulting
the author of an existing driver.. corp *or* community.. so who
On 2/1/07, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, reengineering nvidia/ati DRM is rude to ati/nvidia, so was creating
tigon3, so was rewriting from scratch the GPL drivers some ATA vendors
published in the past, so was spurning the SATA/SAS stack adaptec
offered...
It is rude, but
On 2/1/07, Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, reengineering nvidia/ati DRM is rude to ati/nvidia, so was creating
tigon3, so was rewriting from scratch the GPL drivers some ATA vendors
published in the past, so was spurning the SATA/SAS stack adaptec
offered...
It is rude, but
On 2/1/07, Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not all of them.
It seems it's kosher to rewrite a corp GPL driver but not a community one.
As I said, Greg didn't say it was rude to write a new driver without consulting
the author of an existing driver.. corp *or* community.. so who said
On 2/2/07, Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started working on one a while ago but I ran out of time to
dedicate to the project. My schedule is opening up again, though, so
I plan to start working on it again. At this point I have most of
the actual loader code written, the problem is
On 2/2/07, Jon Masters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. I totally dig the *idea* here - I mean, this issue has been ongoing
for a long time now. But I'd like to see a few comments as to whether we
need a technological mechanism here to enforce the obvious. To me, it
just seems totally obvious (any
On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel,
play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in
'printf(license)'?
Here I was thinking the rules were: all modules must be GPL and the
jerks who make
Anyone know if a loader for Mach-O binaries for Linux has been written?
Thanks,
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
On 2/1/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, I'm going by Linus's rule here, if a person doesn't want their code
in the kernel tree, then I'm not going to forcefully put it there.
That's just being rude.
Makes sense when you put it that way. However, perhaps an offer to
take over the
On 2/1/07, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That lists seems really outdata.
- RaLink has gpl drivers (SerialMonkey maintains a better version),
- Cisco IPSEC can be replaced by the userspace tool vpnc (as far as the VPN
Concentrators I have to deal with),
It's a wiki[1], I invite
On 1/31/07, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sounds like a fun little project. I'll bite.
Let me know when you have something and I'll go buy those floppies,
test it and fix a bug or two if I find 'em.
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
On 1/31/07, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like a fun little project. I'll bite.
Let me know when you have something and I'll go buy those floppies,
test it and fix a bug or two if I find 'em.
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the
On 2/1/07, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That lists seems really outdata.
- RaLink has gpl drivers (SerialMonkey maintains a better version),
- Cisco IPSEC can be replaced by the userspace tool vpnc (as far as the VPN
Concentrators I have to deal with),
It's a wiki[1], I invite
On 2/1/07, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I'm going by Linus's rule here, if a person doesn't want their code
in the kernel tree, then I'm not going to forcefully put it there.
That's just being rude.
Makes sense when you put it that way. However, perhaps an offer to
take over the
Anyone know if a loader for Mach-O binaries for Linux has been written?
Thanks,
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
On 1/31/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would someone from your long list of people e.g. be willing to maintain
drivers/block/floppy.c ?
I have a floppy drive! Will have to go buy some disks though. What's
wrong with it?
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 1/31/07, Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sort of with Roland on this, the timelines aren't usually worth it
for a company to bother especially with complicated hardware, the time
taken to do a community graphics driver for any GPU where specs have
been available approaches
On 1/31/07, Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sort of with Roland on this, the timelines aren't usually worth it
for a company to bother especially with complicated hardware, the time
taken to do a community graphics driver for any GPU where specs have
been available approaches infinity,
On 1/31/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would someone from your long list of people e.g. be willing to maintain
drivers/block/floppy.c ?
I have a floppy drive! Will have to go buy some disks though. What's
wrong with it?
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 1/25/07, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are a number of common ports in the 512-1023 range. All
obsolescence and meaninglessness aside, there _are_ rather "important"
services in that range, ldaps, rtsp, kerberos, rsync, ftps, imaps, just
to name a few from /etc/services.
On 1/25/07, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a number of common ports in the 512-1023 range. All
obsolescence and meaninglessness aside, there _are_ rather important
services in that range, ldaps, rtsp, kerberos, rsync, ftps, imaps, just
to name a few from /etc/services. This
On 1/9/07, Rok Markovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I want to write open source driver. BUT I don't know if i am allowed to
do this. Our company is small, just a few researchers, and most of software
written is published under GPL licence (not all, but that is firmware for uC),
all of the
On 1/9/07, Rok Markovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to write open source driver. BUT I don't know if i am allowed to
do this. Our company is small, just a few researchers, and most of software
written is published under GPL licence (not all, but that is firmware for uC),
all of the
On 1/9/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It does already exist:
http://winehq.org/site/docs/winelib-guide/index
That's half the guide I recommended Dirk write.. and could do with
some updating. The other half is how exactly you go about using
DirectX with winelib. I've seen no
On 1/9/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And remember Picasa as a success story for Wine - exactly because a port
would have required too much effort for developers that were busy with
other things.
I understand what you're saying here, but Picasa *is* a port. They
ship an elf binary
On 1/9/07, Dirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tried to get WoW installed with Cedega 5.2.9 for two days now.
Cedega is not a replacement for ports. And it does not encourage ports.
We're totally off topic now, but what the hell.. You wanna encourage
ports? Write a step by step guide on how to
Call me crazy, but game manufacturers want directx right? You aint
running that in the kernel.
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please
Call me crazy, but game manufacturers want directx right? You aint
running that in the kernel.
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please
On 1/9/07, Dirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried to get WoW installed with Cedega 5.2.9 for two days now.
Cedega is not a replacement for ports. And it does not encourage ports.
We're totally off topic now, but what the hell.. You wanna encourage
ports? Write a step by step guide on how to
On 1/9/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And remember Picasa as a success story for Wine - exactly because a port
would have required too much effort for developers that were busy with
other things.
I understand what you're saying here, but Picasa *is* a port. They
ship an elf binary
On 1/9/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does already exist:
http://winehq.org/site/docs/winelib-guide/index
That's half the guide I recommended Dirk write.. and could do with
some updating. The other half is how exactly you go about using
DirectX with winelib. I've seen no
On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in
practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you
have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump
of the compiled code and prove
On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in
practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you
have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump
of the compiled code and prove
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even
totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who,
that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of
code that doesn't infringe on
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even
totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who,
that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of
code that doesn't infringe on
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
