On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:36:46AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:38:53PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> > One point that nobody raised so far: _reliable_ working on ndiswrapper
> > depends on the 16k-stack patch that is not available in Debian AFAIK.
> > Without that patch,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:38:53PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> One point that nobody raised so far: _reliable_ working on ndiswrapper
> depends on the 16k-stack patch that is not available in Debian AFAIK.
> Without that patch, drivers requiring ndiswrapper (being free or not)
> only work by pure
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:04:59AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Taking it out of main moves us in the wrong direction if our goal is to
> give our users a *usable* operating system, as opposed to some kind of
> 'proof of concept' OS that some people here seem to want to create, but
> that the majo
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:33:51PM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> I simply can not understand why you all are making such a big fuss about
> ndiswrapper being in contrib or in main.
Taking it out of main moves us in the wrong direction if our goal is to
give our users a *usable* operating system, as
* Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-27 14:21]:
> ndiswraper is to allow users to write drivers, which they may or may
> not have written themselves and which may or may not be free software.
Wrong, its purpose ist to let them run these drivers.
yours Martin
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 05:01:25PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> If I have a hardware which comes with a CD/DVD/Floppy with the firmware
> and there is a free firmware loader but it must stay in contrib it will
> not realy productiv. It is a big disavantage.
Why? I've been using Debian for qu
Am 2006-02-20 23:38:53, schrieb Adam McKenna:
> Practically, it's to avoid shipping things on our CDs that depend on stuff
> that's not on our CDs. In this case, even in the absence of free NDIS
Right, I do not like the Idea, to ship a coupe of CD's
with Firmware and drivers in Debian.
Insteed
Am 2006-02-21 15:36:16, schrieb Anthony Towns:
> That's a mistaken view; the purpose of contrib is to give us a place
> to ship free software that we can't ship in Debian proper (ie, main)
> because it would violate "We will never make the system require the use
> of a non-free component" or, hist
Hello Peter,
Am 2006-02-19 01:51:31, schrieb Peter Samuelson:
> Good, then we can stop talking about including it in main. We don't
> ship hardware, so if firmware is part of the hardware, we don't need to
> ship it either. If it's part of the hardware, then it is the hardware
> vendor's respon
Am 2006-02-19 08:46:42, schrieb Michael Poole:
> Exactly what is the "technical solution" for installing drivers for
> firmware-requiring hardware if you only have Debian proper (i.e. main)
> available? That is the situation I described, and I really do not see
> any technical solution for it, no
Am 2006-02-19 08:46:16, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
> Please stop these lies. I repeat: technical solutions do exist. For
> hardware unnecessary at installation's first stage, it is only a matter
> of making non-free available.
ACK!
> For hardware necessary for the first
> stage, it would be possi
Am 2006-02-19 01:52:05, schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> On Feb 19, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
> > fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main.
> Because it's good for Debian and is good for our users.
Sorry Marc
Am 2006-02-19 00:44:29, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
> I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
> fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main. Non-free is here for a
> reason, we just have to use it. Technical solutions to have the driver
> in the kernel or in contrib, a
Am 2006-02-19 08:40:44, schrieb Michael Poole:
> Again, there is no mention of "pointless" software in Policy -- if
> there were, some large fraction of main would be moved because it is
> duplicative, trivial or otherwise pointless to have. Likewise, there
> is no mention of "Windows driver deve
Am 2006-02-19 02:11:30, schrieb Peter Samuelson:
> No, the point of Java is to allow users to run Java software, which
> they may or may not have written themselves, and which may or may not
> be free software. Examples of all permutations of the above are really
ndiswraper is to allow users to
Am 2006-02-19 11:13:19, schrieb Daniel Stone:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > la, 2006-02-18 kello 10:43 -0500, Michael Poole kirjoitti:
> > > What's the purpose of an assembler without assembly code to use it on?
> >
> > It can be used, for example, to assemb
Am 2006-02-18 13:42:38, schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:49:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Does the lack of a free driver which can be used with ndiswrapper mean
> > that it is impossible to use ndiswrapper with such a free driver, should
> > one eventually be written?
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 05:01:21PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Well, aside from not believing that anyone is going to use CIPE under
> ndiswrapper (without someone stepping forward and testifying that this is
> the case for them), I see a distinction between "wine is necessary in order
> for you
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:20:42PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:52:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:43:39PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > What makes 'running free windows drivers for stuff' so much more
> > > unrealistic than 'running
[I originally sent this to Peter directly, my apologies.]
> I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find
> anyone who would consider it "useful" to print an init message to the
> kernel log, use up a bit of memory, and do absolutely nothing else.
I'd find it useful for the functionality to be the
[Christian Pernegger]
> Judging from its documentation ndiswrapper doesn't need any non-free
> binaries, the module can be inserted even if no drivers are
> "installed". It might not be very useful like that, but "useful" is a
> very subjective thing in any case
Not *that* subjective. I think yo
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 04:58:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 07:32:33PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > The only instance where wine is serving a purpose without requiring the
> > > > use of non-free code is when you're better off using native Linux
> > > > softwar
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 07:32:33PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > The only instance where wine is serving a purpose without requiring the
> > > use of non-free code is when you're better off using native Linux
> > > software anyway.
> > TurboCASH is a potential counterexample -- it's a complet
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:52:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:29:25PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:35:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The only instance when it's usable without any non-free code is when
> > > you're better off usi
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:32:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Well, yeah, I am, since I'm both on ftpmaster and on the tech ctte, the
> > latter of which is considering a resolution to move it right now. I'm
> > not sure why you'd
[I'm not a developer, just one of Debians users - I hope it is not
inappropriate for me to comment on this issue here.]
For starters, I'd always thought that contrib was for packages that
Depend on a package out of non-free -- basically to ensure that people
who have only DFSG-free software in the
Bug CC dropped.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:20:42PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> A requirement for main "must be usefull in a free software only
> enviroinement" is the the beginning of the road to madness. Next
> theill come for free clients for protocols that (currently) only
> have non-free serve
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:32:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Well, yeah, I am, since I'm both on ftpmaster and on the tech ctte, the
> latter of which is considering a resolution to move it right now. I'm
> not sure why you'd rather continue making bald assertions I've already
> indicated I don
Am Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2006 12:52 schrieb Anthony Towns:
> Anyway, despite it's acronym, I'd put Wine under the same heading as
> emulators.
Wine reads a different binary format than elf and also provides the libs in
the other format. Is the linux kernel on sparc an emulator if it can run
sola
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:52:29AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:43:39PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > What makes 'running free windows drivers for stuff' so much more
> > unrealistic than 'running free windows software for stuff'? Especially
> > seen as how no Windo
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:05:23AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:33:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Whether CIPE and Windows driver development "count" isn't a fact, it's
> > an opinion. Since they're both thoroughly pointless, I don't think they do.
> The fact is it
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:29:25PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:35:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The only instance when it's usable without any non-free code is when
> > you're better off using a native driver anyway.
> The only instance where wine is serving a
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:43:39PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:33:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:11:50PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > > The reality is that we can't imagine all the uses our users might have for
> > > this software,
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:33:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:11:50PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > The reality is that we can't imagine all the uses our users might have for
> > this software,
>
> You don't have to imagine all the uses, just the realistic ones, whi
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:35:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The only instance when it's usable without any non-free code is when
> you're better off using a native driver anyway.
The only instance where wine is serving a purpose without requiring the
use of non-free code is when you're better
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:33:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Whether CIPE and Windows driver development "count" isn't a fact, it's
> an opinion. Since they're both thoroughly pointless, I don't think they do.
The fact is it doesn't matter whether they 'count'. They exist, and that
is enough
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:11:50PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:35:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > So give a reference or Message-ID of (what you consider) a sound argument
> > > that is not similar to "CIPE, and Windows driver developers who want to
> > > test
>
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:35:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So give a reference or Message-ID of (what you consider) a sound argument
> > that is not similar to "CIPE, and Windows driver developers who want to test
> > on Linux don't count."
>
> And that's what I mean -- there's nothing un
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:57:21AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 07:04:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > In this case, even in the absence of free NDIS
> > > drivers, one could argue that the utility of having ndiswrapper in main
> > > (especially if it is integrated int
On Feb 21, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The reason for contrib isn't practicality at all, it's to distinguish
> free software that stands on its own and that depends on non-free
> software. That's why it's specifically talked about in the social
> contract, rather than only being discussed in policy.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 07:04:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > In this case, even in the absence of free NDIS
> > drivers, one could argue that the utility of having ndiswrapper in main
> > (especially if it is integrated into the install) outweighs any potential
> > drawbacks (and since the o
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:38:53PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> Practically, [contrib is] to avoid shipping things on our CDs that depend on
> stuff
> that's not on our CDs.
The reason for contrib isn't practicality at all, it's to distinguish
free software that stands on its own and that depends
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 03:36:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 09:01:40PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > IMHO, the main purpose of contrib is to avoid shipping things on CD that
> > depend on programs in non-free. It is not a section that we put programs in
> > in order
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 09:01:40PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> IMHO, the main purpose of contrib is to avoid shipping things on CD that
> depend on programs in non-free. It is not a section that we put programs in
> in order to 'punish' them for depending on non-free code.
That's a mistaken vie
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:40:26AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> Because it's free software that processes asm input, and there is a
> significant
> amount of useful, free i386 asm that makes nasm necessary ?
>
> I'll ask again: Is the purpose of ndiswrapper running non-free drivers? If
> i
[ObRC: 343781]
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 12:16:23AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> How many have ever used wine to run Free Software?
I have. FWIW.
I've also used wine in the process of developing and testing non-free
software. I think that's a valid rationale for keeping wine in main; we
don't
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 04:21:44PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Wouter Verhelst]
> > apt-cache rdepends libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2
> >
> > Gee, only -dev, -dbg and gcc packages. Isn't that for non-free software?
>
> No, not really. There's plenty of software, free and otherwise, which
> one migh
> > Why on earth would anyone want to run the Windows version of a native
> > Linux app under a Windows emulation under Linux? :-)
>
> Because they're a developer of that app and they want to test the Windows
> port before releasing?
Okay, that's a bit of a corner case ;-) but nonetheless valid.
[Wouter Verhelst]
> What if I'm interested in writing such a driver myself, but less
> interested in having to run Windows?
Then you should get busy writing that driver. Without any such drivers
in existence, it's hard to take this line of reasoning seriously. I
find it absurd that someone woul
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:11:30AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Michael Poole]
> > If you want to move ndiswrapper to contrib, I expect the next step is
> > to do the same to libflash, for the same reasons.
>
> There's a big difference between enabling someone to install non-free
> software, a
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:10:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 03:14:40AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[...]
> > It is already possible to use ndiswrapper without having any non-free
> > software installed. Granted, it doesn't do much useful that way,
>
> If you have to
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> la, 2006-02-18 kello 10:43 -0500, Michael Poole kirjoitti:
> > What's the purpose of an assembler without assembly code to use it on?
>
> It can be used, for example, to assemble code you write yourself.
Exactly.
ndiswrapper can b
Le lundi 20 février 2006 à 11:56 +0100, Hendrik Sattler a écrit :
> Am Montag, 20. Februar 2006 11:11 schrieb Jérôme Warnier:
> > [..]
> >
> > > Ndiswrapper probably is better compared to such drivers than to wine
> > > or dosemu.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but Wine and Dosemu can run free softwares (respe
Am Montag, 20. Februar 2006 11:11 schrieb Jérôme Warnier:
> [..]
>
> > Ndiswrapper probably is better compared to such drivers than to wine
> > or dosemu.
>
> I'm sorry, but Wine and Dosemu can run free softwares (respectively for
> Windows and DOS), so they are not unuseful without proprietary
> s
[Peter Samuelson]
> > There's a big difference between enabling someone to install
> > non-free software, and enabling someone to view data. (Some of
> > which is free, some not.) Also, in case this was your point, swf
> > content is sometimes generated with free tools such as ploticus.
[Mich
[..]
> Ndiswrapper probably is better compared to such drivers than to wine
> or dosemu.
I'm sorry, but Wine and Dosemu can run free softwares (respectively for
Windows and DOS), so they are not unuseful without proprietary
softwares.
I can't think of any free NDIS driver, but if such thing exists
[Kevin Mark]
> if a piece of software was initially created to enable the use of
> non-dfsg software with a dfsg system it is classified as 'ícontri',
> but then someone creates dfsg-software to use this software, now its
> classified as 'main'. Would this follow?
You're trying to sneak in an uns
Bug cc dropped.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 03:14:40AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Wine is something that was written to make the use of Windows binary
> software possible on Linux.
Yes, and there's plenty of useful, free software compiled as Windows
binaries. Some of which is only available as
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:42:38PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:49:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:40:26AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > I'll ask again: Is the purpose of ndiswrapper running non-free
> > > drivers? If it isn't, sho
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 08:40 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > > If you hadn't already shot your credibility, you just did. Anthony
> > > listed a dozen or so packages in Debian which require nasm in order to
> > > build. How can you "see no packages" when he g
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 08:46 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > > Please stop these lies. I repeat: technical solutions do exist. For
> > > hardware unnecessary at installation's first stage, it is only a matter
> > > of making non-free available. For hardware nec
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:11:30AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> No, the point of Java is to allow users to run Java software, which
> they may or may not have written themselves, and which may or may not
> be free software. Examples of all permutations of the above are really
> easy to find. C
Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 08:40 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > If you hadn't already shot your credibility, you just did. Anthony
> > listed a dozen or so packages in Debian which require nasm in order to
> > build. How can you "see no packages" when he gave you an explicit list
> > of th
Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 08:46 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > Please stop these lies. I repeat: technical solutions do exist. For
> > hardware unnecessary at installation's first stage, it is only a matter
> > of making non-free available. For hardware necessary for the first
> > stage, it
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 21:32 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > > I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
> > > fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main. Non-free is here for a
> > > reason, we just have to use it. Technical solutio
Peter Samuelson writes:
> [Michael Poole]
> > What's the purpose of an assembler without assembly code to use it
> > on? Despite Anthony's claim, I see no packages that can use nasm out
> > of the box
>
> If you hadn't already shot your credibility, you just did. Anthony
> listed a dozen or so
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> la, 2006-02-18 kello 10:43 -0500, Michael Poole kirjoitti:
> > What's the purpose of an assembler without assembly code to use it on?
>
> It can be used, for example, to assemble code you write yourself. That
> is, after all, the pr
[Michael Poole]
> What's the purpose of an assembler without assembly code to use it
> on? Despite Anthony's claim, I see no packages that can use nasm out
> of the box
If you hadn't already shot your credibility, you just did. Anthony
listed a dozen or so packages in Debian which require nasm
[Hendrik Sattler]
> Me just doesn't get the rationale behind differing between firmware
> in a PROM and firmware that the driver loads into the hardware.
> There is none.
Good, then we can stop talking about including it in main. We don't
ship hardware, so if firmware is part of the hardware, we
Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 21:32 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
> > fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main. Non-free is here for a
> > reason, we just have to use it. Technical solutions to have the driver
> > in the k
Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 01:52 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Feb 19, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
> > fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main.
> Because it's good for Debian and is good for ou
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 00:30 +0100, Hendrik Sattler a écrit :
> > So let me make it more precise: only source for something that can actually
> > be
> > compiled and runs on a system's host CPU.
> > Me just doesn't get the rationale behind differing between firm
On Feb 19, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder why all people go on trying to build up tons of different
> fallacious reasonings to keep firmwares in main.
Because it's good for Debian and is good for our users.
> Non-free is here for a
> reason, we just have to use it. Technic
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 08:24:32PM +0100, Olaf Titz wrote:
> > > First, I couldn't find any reference to a "GPLed NDIS driver" in
> > > ndiswrapper's
> > > website, like Michael Poole asserts:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00381.html
> > I assume he was talking about th
Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 00:30 +0100, Hendrik Sattler a écrit :
> Me just doesn't get the rationale behind differing between firmware in a PROM
> and firmware that the driver loads into the hardware. There is none.
Oh, and please, dear trolls, stop raising the firmwares-in-main banner
in eac
Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 00:30 +0100, Hendrik Sattler a écrit :
> So let me make it more precise: only source for something that can actually
> be
> compiled and runs on a system's host CPU.
> Me just doesn't get the rationale behind differing between firmware in a PROM
> and firmware that
Am Samstag, 18. Februar 2006 23:43 schrieb Josselin Mouette:
> Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 23:37 +0100, Hendrik Sattler a écrit :
> > Maybe Debian should take one or two steps back to the point where it
> > only requires source for something that can actually be compiled with
> > something in Debia
Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 23:37 +0100, Hendrik Sattler a écrit :
> Maybe Debian should take one or two steps back to the point where it
> only requires source for something that can actually be compiled with
> something in Debian.
Ahem... so, to force the trait, you mean we could distribute any
Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 23:34 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Feb 18, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The same goes for a driver with a firmware.
> Drivers do not have a firmware, hardware devices do.
Really? So all these drivers that come with an integrated firmware don'
Am Samstag, 18. Februar 2006 23:08 schrieb Arthur de Jong:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Come on, please stop arguing with random, unsuited comparisons, and use
> > common sense : what's the purpose of ndiswrapper without non-free
> > drivers to use it on? We've always put thi
On Feb 18, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The same goes for a driver with a firmware.
Drivers do not have a firmware, hardware devices do.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 23:08 +0100, Arthur de Jong a écrit :
> Would the situation change (contrib-wise) if ndiswrapper were integrated
> into the kernel? Would we want to split the ndiswrapper part to contrib
> then?
In this case, the ndiswrapper functionality would become optional for
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Come on, please stop arguing with random, unsuited comparisons, and use
common sense : what's the purpose of ndiswrapper without non-free
drivers to use it on? We've always put things of the like in cont
> > First, I couldn't find any reference to a "GPLed NDIS driver" in
> > ndiswrapper's
> > website, like Michael Poole asserts:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/01/msg00381.html
> >
>
> I assume he was talking about the CIPE driver; it's linked right from
> the main ndiswrapper
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:59:07AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> > > rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
> > > assembler code. ndiswra
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:59:07AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> > rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
> > assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't a driver compiler, it'
la, 2006-02-18 kello 10:43 -0500, Michael Poole kirjoitti:
> What's the purpose of an assembler without assembly code to use it on?
It can be used, for example, to assemble code you write yourself. That
is, after all, the primary purpose of programming tools: to help
programmers develop programs.
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 09:59 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> >
> > > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> > > rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
> > > assembler cod
Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 09:59 -0500, Michael Poole a écrit :
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> > rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
> > assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't a driver compiler
Anthony Towns writes:
> But even if that weren't the case, nasm is an assembler -- it doesn't
> rely on assembler code to do anything useful, its purpose is to translate
> assembler code. ndiswrapper isn't a driver compiler, it's a wrapper to
> allow existing drivers to run on Linux.
This apparen
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 08:46:53AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> But nasm requires such assembly for useful execution!
Dude, you're on crack. First, there's apparently free software in
main that you can compile with nasm to your heart's content, namely
crystalspace, drip, e3, effectv, extipl, fl
Robert Millan writes:
> Policy:
>
> "2.2.2 The contrib section
>
> [...]
> Examples of packages which would be included in contrib are:
>
Here's the part that you left out:
* free packages which require contrib, non-free packages or packages
which are not in our archive at all for compila
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 12:49:48PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:40:26AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > I'll ask again: Is the purpose of ndiswrapper running non-free drivers?
> > If it
> > isn't, show me a free, non-toy, non-POC driver that would prove otherwise.
>
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:40:26AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> I'll ask again: Is the purpose of ndiswrapper running non-free drivers? If
> it
> isn't, show me a free, non-toy, non-POC driver that would prove otherwise.
Does the lack of a free driver which can be used with ndiswrapper mean
th
El sáb, 18-02-2006 a las 09:40 +0100, Robert Millan escribió:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 08:14:38PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> >
> > Then please work to revise [Removed false premise fallacy]
>
> Last time your argument was that free NDIS drivers exist, so the situation is
> analogous to wine.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 08:14:38PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
>
> Then please work to revise [Removed false premise fallacy]
Last time your argument was that free NDIS drivers exist, so the situation is
analogous to wine. Nobody bothered to check, but it turns out that only one
free driver exis
Robert Millan writes:
> I see. From http://cipe-win32.sourceforge.net/ :
>
> "CIPE-Win32 is a port of Olaf Titz's CIPE package from Linux to Windows NT."
>
> I think this is the cipe-source package in debian. If this driver is already
> available, there's no much point in using it via ndiswr
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 23:48 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 12:40:10PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:00 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > First, I couldn't find any reference to a "GPLed NDIS driver" in
> > > ndiswrapper's
> > > we
On Feb 17, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see. From http://cipe-win32.sourceforge.net/ :
>
> "CIPE-Win32 is a port of Olaf Titz's CIPE package from Linux to Windows NT."
>
> I think this is the cipe-source package in debian. If this driver is already
> available, there's no muc
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 12:40:10PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 18:00 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > First, I couldn't find any reference to a "GPLed NDIS driver" in
> > ndiswrapper's
> > website, like Michael Poole asserts:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
