> > Quick one for any non-technical readers: we're trying to make sure that > any features we add do not enable DRM or otherwise make it easier for > proprietary services or systems to hold users captive. We're diving deep > into this in the context of some objections that were made many years ago, > which i knew were not only faulty but also missed the real danger. The > features make many types of programs more robust, so it's worth getting to > the bottom of it.
- Re: Future Direction of GNU Hurd? Olaf Buddenhagen
- Re: Future Direction of GNU Hurd? William ML Leslie
- Re: Future Direction of GNU Hurd? Olaf Buddenhagen
- Re: Future Direction of GNU Hurd? William ML Leslie
- Re: Future Direction of GNU Hurd? William ML Leslie
- Re: Future Direction of GNU Hurd? Olaf Buddenhagen
- Re: Future Direction of GNU Hurd? William ML Leslie
- Re: Future Direction of GNU Hurd? William ML Leslie
- Constructors vs. GNU (was: Future Direction of GN... Olaf Buddenhagen
- Re: Constructors vs. GNU (was: Future Direction o... William ML Leslie
- Re: Constructors vs. GNU (was: Future Direction o... William ML Leslie
- Re: Constructors vs. GNU (was: Future Direction o... Jonathan S. Shapiro
- Re: Constructors vs. GNU (was: Future Direction o... William ML Leslie
- IPC etc. (was: Future Direction of GNU Hurd?) Olaf Buddenhagen
- Re: IPC etc. (was: Future Direction of GNU Hurd?) Jonathan S. Shapiro
- Re: IPC etc. (was: Future Direction of GNU Hurd?) William ML Leslie
- Re: IPC etc. (was: Future Direction of GNU Hurd?) William ML Leslie
- Re: IPC etc. (was: Future Direction of GNU Hurd?) William ML Leslie
- Re: IPC etc. (was: Future Direction of GNU Hurd?) Jonathan S. Shapiro
- Re: IPC etc. (was: Future Direction of GNU Hurd?) William ML Leslie
- Re: Future Direction of GNU Hurd? Jonathan S. Shapiro
