If people could prefer to code in that way back then,
I have no difficulty believing that there are people
today who honestly prefer a similar coding style when
they write device drivers.
Interesting point, yet maybe this coding style was
preferred because of much simpler hardware at the time
Maybe debian-x, maybe debian-devel or maybe you need
a new list.
Ok, debian-wankers, got it. If some people feel the
topic is so absurd, why do they waste their time
answering rudely ? I expect contradiction, but if
gratuitously insulting others is some game, let them
play with their
--- Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think MJ Ray was answering rudely there
My sincere apologies to MJ Ray if I misunderstood what
he was saying.
Please don't let a few people spoil your outlook
on debian-legal as
a whole.
- Josh Triplett
Thank you, this is refreshing.
d'Alméras
--- Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:02:50PM -0800, Ben
Johnson wrote:
I would like to hear your comments on the matter
before I submit a bug report asking for the
removal
from base of the nv X driver and possibly also of
the
rivafb kernel module
Hi list,
I would like to hear your comments on the matter
before I submit a bug report asking for the removal
from base of the nv X driver and possibly also of the
rivafb kernel module for severe policy violation. The
code for nv is voluntarily obfuscated, in effect
making it proprietary: its
5 matches
Mail list logo
