On Jan 28, 2008 11:35 AM, Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday 28 January 2008, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> >
> >We have no way of debugging that module, so please try 2.6.24 without it.
>
> Sorry, I can't do this and have a working machine. The nv driver has suffered
> bit rot or
On Jan 28, 2008 11:35 AM, Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 28 January 2008, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
We have no way of debugging that module, so please try 2.6.24 without it.
Sorry, I can't do this and have a working machine. The nv driver has suffered
bit rot or something
On 6/20/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This argument is the obvious nonsense. "Runs on TiVO" is a property of
> the software that TiVO distributes -- such an important property that
> it would be nonsensical for them to distribute it with their hardware.
> But they do
On 6/20/07, Tomas Neme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm about this far to Linus'izing my wording and calling you stupid,
hypocrite, or bullshitter
Knock yourself out, it will no doubt lend much moral and logic weight
to your rhetoric.
Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 6/20/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tomas Neme writes:
> > I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
> > what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
> > deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
> >
On 6/20/07, Tomas Neme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why, if you let user-compiled kernels to run in a TiVo, it might be
modified so the TiVo can be used to pirate-copy protected content,
1) It may be far more likely that in the majority of cases it will be
modified with the intent to allow
On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
but the signature isn't part of the kernel
But some would argue that it's part of the source with which the
binary is derived (only a court could meaningfully decide if they're
right).
and the code that checks the
signature is
On 6/20/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Dave Neuer wrote:
> >
> > And anybody who thinks others don't have the "right to choice", and then
> > tries to talk about "freedoms" is a damn hypocritical moron.
>
&
On 6/20/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To call people who draw the line in
> a different place than you hypocrites is BS.
Very poor example. In many parts of the world "Just quit" is "just starve
to death".
So please DON'T equate the two. Tivo is a minor control argument about a
On 6/20/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But they do have the right to make their own choices, and try their own
strategies. And people shouldn't complain about that. If somebody doesn't
like the Tivo box, and the Tivo service requirements, just don't *buy* the
damn thing, and
On 6/20/07, SL Baur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/19/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux was a tool for UNIX sysadmins and admin wannabes to
> practice their UNIX chops at home - or a conveniently inexpensive
> platform on which to run Apache. Companie
On 6/20/07, SL Baur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/19/07, Dave Neuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linux was a tool for UNIX sysadmins and admin wannabes to
practice their UNIX chops at home - or a conveniently inexpensive
platform on which to run Apache. Companies -- other than Linux
On 6/20/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But they do have the right to make their own choices, and try their own
strategies. And people shouldn't complain about that. If somebody doesn't
like the Tivo box, and the Tivo service requirements, just don't *buy* the
damn thing, and don't
On 6/20/07, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To call people who draw the line in
a different place than you hypocrites is BS.
Very poor example. In many parts of the world Just quit is just starve
to death.
So please DON'T equate the two. Tivo is a minor control argument about a
silly
On 6/20/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Dave Neuer wrote:
And anybody who thinks others don't have the right to choice, and then
tries to talk about freedoms is a damn hypocritical moron.
One might say the same thing about someone who claims not to have
On 6/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the signature isn't part of the kernel
But some would argue that it's part of the source with which the
binary is derived (only a court could meaningfully decide if they're
right).
and the code that checks the
signature is
On 6/20/07, Tomas Neme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why, if you let user-compiled kernels to run in a TiVo, it might be
modified so the TiVo can be used to pirate-copy protected content,
1) It may be far more likely that in the majority of cases it will be
modified with the intent to allow
On 6/20/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tomas Neme writes:
I have been following this discussion for the last week or so, and
what I haven't been able to figure out is what the hell is the big
deal with TiVO doing whatever they want to with their stupid design.
They made a
On 6/20/07, Tomas Neme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm about this far to Linus'izing my wording and calling you stupid,
hypocrite, or bullshitter
Knock yourself out, it will no doubt lend much moral and logic weight
to your rhetoric.
Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 6/20/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This argument is the obvious nonsense. Runs on TiVO is a property of
the software that TiVO distributes -- such an important property that
it would be nonsensical for them to distribute it with their hardware.
But they do distribute it,
On 6/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it was the ability of the linux kernel to adapt to vastly different
hardware (including embeded hardware) that made Linux what it is today.
Which is why NetBSD is currently poised to take over the world...
Dave
-
To unsubscribe from
On 6/19/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scott Preece wrote:
> On 6/19/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > Tivo didn't make the Linux success. More Tivos can definitely undo it.
> >
> > I don't think so.
> >
> > First, it's not Linux that made success,
On 6/19/07, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You keep referring to the four freedoms so I googled for them and found
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
So which of the freedoms did Tivo take away?
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The
On 6/19/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 19, 2007, Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only, your statement above seems to run counter to your previous claims
> that the "anti-tivoisation" provisions of GPLv3 would bring _more_
> developers to copyleft software.
>
On 6/19/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 19, 2007, Anders Larsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only, your statement above seems to run counter to your previous claims
that the anti-tivoisation provisions of GPLv3 would bring _more_
developers to copyleft software.
So which
On 6/19/07, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You keep referring to the four freedoms so I googled for them and found
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
So which of the freedoms did Tivo take away?
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The
On 6/19/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Preece wrote:
On 6/19/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Tivo didn't make the Linux success. More Tivos can definitely undo it.
I don't think so.
First, it's not Linux that made success, but rather GNU
On 6/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it was the ability of the linux kernel to adapt to vastly different
hardware (including embeded hardware) that made Linux what it is today.
Which is why NetBSD is currently poised to take over the world...
Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this
On 6/18/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seriously, looking only at the downside of anti-tivoization (tivoizer
might turn us down), without even acknowledging that, should the
tivoizer change practice and respect users' freedoms, you'd be able to
get far more contributions from
On 6/18/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, looking only at the downside of anti-tivoization (tivoizer
might turn us down), without even acknowledging that, should the
tivoizer change practice and respect users' freedoms, you'd be able to
get far more contributions from all
On 6/14/07, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel
> > changes and building y
On 6/14/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And what about people who can't modify the Linux kernel? They don't know C.
They don't know how to use a shell. They're not familiar with UNIX operating
systems at all. Maybe they aren't smart enough to modify kernel code.
I learned C in
On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel
changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such
the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled.
Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me
-- the
On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel
changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such
the spirit of the GPL v2 seems fulfilled.
Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me
-- the fact
On 6/14/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what about people who can't modify the Linux kernel? They don't know C.
They don't know how to use a shell. They're not familiar with UNIX operating
systems at all. Maybe they aren't smart enough to modify kernel code.
I learned C in
On 6/14/07, Dmitry Torokhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/14/07, Dave Neuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/14/07, Lennart Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nothing prevents you from taking tivos kernel
changes and building your own hardware to run that code on, and as such
the spirit
On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (See, among other cases, Lexmark. v. Static
> > Controls.) A copyright is not a patent, you can only own
> > something if there
> > are multiple equally good ways to do it and you
On 2/16/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/16/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(See, among other cases, Lexmark. v. Static
Controls.) A copyright is not a patent, you can only own
something if there
are multiple equally good ways to do it and you claim *one*
On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(See, among other cases, Lexmark. v. Static
Controls.) A copyright is not a patent, you can only own something if there
are multiple equally good ways to do it and you claim *one* of them.
Only in a world where "write a Linux module" is a
On 2/16/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(See, among other cases, Lexmark. v. Static
Controls.) A copyright is not a patent, you can only own something if there
are multiple equally good ways to do it and you claim *one* of them.
Only in a world where write a Linux module is a
On 12/21/06, Tomas Carnecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Porter wrote:
> I'm pretty sure Linus has decided, basically he said the patches to
> prevent non-gpl binary drivers are not going into his tree unless every
> other tree adopts it. Of course the few supporting won't get off their
>
On 12/21/06, Tomas Carnecky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Porter wrote:
I'm pretty sure Linus has decided, basically he said the patches to
prevent non-gpl binary drivers are not going into his tree unless every
other tree adopts it. Of course the few supporting won't get off their
high
On 12/18/06, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, okay. However I'm quite sure that there are more ways to accomplish the
tasks handled by the code in the header files (in most cases).
Well, that may be so. Unfortunately, Lexmark vs. Static Controls
actually says that even if there are
On 12/18/06, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:38:38AM -0500, Dave Neuer wrote:
> I think this is the key, both with libraries and w/ your book example
> below; the concept of independant "meaning." If your code doesn't do
> whatever it i
On 12/17/06, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote:
> > I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
> > Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking
> > operations a good number of them
On 12/17/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Linking does have one thing that it implies: it's maybe a bit "closer"
relationship between the parts than "mkisofs" implies. So there is
definitely a higher _correlation_ between "derived work" and "linking",
but it's really a correlation,
On 12/17/06, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linking does have one thing that it implies: it's maybe a bit closer
relationship between the parts than mkisofs implies. So there is
definitely a higher _correlation_ between derived work and linking,
but it's really a correlation, not a
On 12/17/06, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote:
I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking
operations a good number of them (depending on
On 12/18/06, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:38:38AM -0500, Dave Neuer wrote:
I think this is the key, both with libraries and w/ your book example
below; the concept of independant meaning. If your code doesn't do
whatever it is supposed to do _unless_
On 12/18/06, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, okay. However I'm quite sure that there are more ways to accomplish the
tasks handled by the code in the header files (in most cases).
Well, that may be so. Unfortunately, Lexmark vs. Static Controls
actually says that even if there are
On 12/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
DOES to create incompatibilities
DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE.
All someone has to do or say is.
"... I did not ever accept the GPL license
On 12/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT
DOES to create incompatibilities
DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE.
All someone has to do or say is.
... I did not ever accept the GPL license
On 8/15/05, Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, overall, I agree that we should not invent hacks to make up for
> another software package's problems...
but also wrote:
> If the kernel could handle that aspect, it would make all programs more
> stable.
which seems a little
On 8/15/05, Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, overall, I agree that we should not invent hacks to make up for
another software package's problems...
but also wrote:
If the kernel could handle that aspect, it would make all programs more
stable.
which seems a little contradictory.
On 7/20/05, Simon Strandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Denis Vlasenko skrev:
>
> >
> >Why do you care? I bet that differences between i686 code and pentium4 code
> >are well below noise level.
> >--
> >vda
> >
> For x86_64 the flags -mno-sse -mno-mmx -mno-sse2 -mno-3dnow are always
> used for
On 7/20/05, Simon Strandman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Denis Vlasenko skrev:
Why do you care? I bet that differences between i686 code and pentium4 code
are well below noise level.
--
vda
For x86_64 the flags -mno-sse -mno-mmx -mno-sse2 -mno-3dnow are always
used for compilation. Why
On 7/8/05, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * K.R. Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ingo,
> >
> > I have an issue with keys VERY SPORADICALLY repeating, SOMETIMES, when
> > running the RT patches.
> > 2.6.12 doesn't seem to have the
> > problem at all, only when running the RT
On 7/8/05, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* K.R. Foley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo,
I have an issue with keys VERY SPORADICALLY repeating, SOMETIMES, when
running the RT patches.
snip
2.6.12 doesn't seem to have the
problem at all, only when running the RT patches. It
58 matches
Mail list logo
