i agree. but informing the IPW2100 users about the problem works in two ways and the outcome is far better than by simply marking it as obsolete :)
On 9/21/08, Zak B. Elep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:15 AM, Ariz Jacinto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> FTBP: http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/blog/devel/other/2008_09_21.html >> >> "[...]Also added couple of jokes about conspiracy theories (like bug fires >> because Intel forces us to buy a new adapter by this error) to make it a >> little bit more flameable and to bring attention. I really hope Intel does >> not do it intentionally. " > > Reading the LKML,[0] it look like mjg59's got the right solution[1] > (as usual:) try to really fix the code rather than making a lot of > noise about it. I do understand Evgeniy's side though (4 years > sitting on such a situation would probably get to anyone's nerves, > especially when said device is fast becoming obsolete.) > > [0] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/21/51 > [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/21/164 > > -- > Zak B. Elep || http://zakame.spunge.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D > _________________________________________________ > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
