> But thats YOURcompanyname.com. Not a third party. If you gave as a
> link somebodyelsescompany.com/gpl then somebodyelse could get rid of
> the link, and your offer wouldn't be valid for "at least three years"
>
> T
You mean it might not be valid for at least three years. It also might be.
You
Alexandre Oliva:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
> > mean: not
> > directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
>
> This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
A lot of people
Alexandre Oliva:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
mean: not
directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party download link.
This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.
A lot of people seem to say
But thats YOURcompanyname.com. Not a third party. If you gave as a
link somebodyelsescompany.com/gpl then somebodyelse could get rid of
the link, and your offer wouldn't be valid for at least three years
T
You mean it might not be valid for at least three years. It also might be.
You also
On Jun 26, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party
download link.
This has
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this sounds like a step backwards, you may not have the sources at that
point if you were relying on the other site to host them.
You would then be violating the GPL, under any version. The GPL is quite
clear that being unable to comply with it means you do not get
Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
> > What this *actually* means is that you want the media player to have
> > higher priority than the DVD ripping program. Ergo you should run
> > "nice +20
Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
On Saturday 23 June 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Jun 22, 2007, at 18:07:15, Alberto Gonzalez wrote:
What this *actually* means is that you want the media player to have
higher priority than the DVD ripping program. Ergo you should run
nice +20 my_dvd_burner or
> > It's this simple, those who chose the GPLv2 for Linux and their
> > contributions to it don't want people to create derivative
> > works of their
> > works that can't be Tivoized. They see this as a feature, and it's the
> Untrue. Many of us think (and the lawyers are unsure) that it is
It's this simple, those who chose the GPLv2 for Linux and their
contributions to it don't want people to create derivative
works of their
works that can't be Tivoized. They see this as a feature, and it's the
Untrue. Many of us think (and the lawyers are unsure) that it is covered
by
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this. I don't
> >> understand why people who disagree with this stance chose GPLv2.
> >> Isn't "no further restrictions" clear enough?
> > everyone
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Now, if you guys can't recognize a goodwill gesture when you see one,
> and prefer to live in the paranoid beliefs that "those evil FSFers are
> trying to force me into a situation in which they'll then be able to
> steal my code", that's really up to you. Don't try to
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> With a mere permission to combine, I can only enforce these provisions
> over my own code.
What does "my own code" mean when we're talking about derivative works and
code in the codebase influencing the design of later code? Code from one
module gets copied into
> > Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of the GPLv3? Couldn't
> > I take any
> > GPLv3 program, combine it with a few lines of Linux code, and
> > Tivoize the
> > result?
> No. This is not permission to relicense. This is permission to
> combine. Each author still gets to enforce the
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
> GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
> compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link
> with code under GPLv3 (or even GPLv3+, constrained by some
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither
> > statements nor
> > instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits Tivoization is
> > really an
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:55:10 -0700
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A key is a number. A signature is a number. They are neither
statements nor
instructions. The argument that GPLv2 prohibits Tivoization is
really and
truly absurd. It has neither a legal nor a moral leg
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link
with code under GPLv3 (or even GPLv3+, constrained by some condition
Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of the GPLv3? Couldn't
I take any
GPLv3 program, combine it with a few lines of Linux code, and
Tivoize the
result?
No. This is not permission to relicense. This is permission to
combine. Each author still gets to enforce the terms of her
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
With a mere permission to combine, I can only enforce these provisions
over my own code.
What does my own code mean when we're talking about derivative works and
code in the codebase influencing the design of later code? Code from one
module gets copied into another.
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Now, if you guys can't recognize a goodwill gesture when you see one,
and prefer to live in the paranoid beliefs that those evil FSFers are
trying to force me into a situation in which they'll then be able to
steal my code, that's really up to you. Don't try to shift
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this. I don't
understand why people who disagree with this stance chose GPLv2.
Isn't no further restrictions clear enough?
everyone else is reading
> I believe compilation copyrights do bear on GPL-licensed software, by
> virtue of the GPL's sentence "[...] rather, the intent is to exercise
> the right to control the distribution of derivative _or collective_
> works based on the Program." (emphasis added).
Ahh, good. So there's no problem
> By "creative combination" do you mean what US copyright law refers to
> as compilations (or their subset collective works)?
Not only. By "creative combination" I mean either a compilation or a
derivative work. I was a bit unclear about that because I wasn't really
addressing compilation rights
> Most of this list has
> already dismissed your rather unique -- I would even say frivolous --
> idea of how far "mere aggregation" goes: I, for one, have better
> things to do than explain why a C file is not a "mere aggregation" of
> the functions it contains.)
>
> Michael Poole
Of course
> 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, and only the GPL allows them to.
Why does the
> I do not say that the BIOS is doing anything (legally) wrong. The
> wrong act is distributing the binary kernel image without distributing
> complete source code for it.
Why are you not complaining that Linus does not distribute the keys he uses
to sign kernel source distributions? If a
> The kernel you build from the source code that Tivo distributes must
> be accepted by Tivo's hardware without making other modifications (to
> Tivo's hardware or bootloader). If that is possible, I will retract
> what I said. If it is not possible, they are omitting part of the
> program's
> 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 design, they build a machine, they sell it
> Much as I hate to extend the life of this execrable thread, since I
> think Alexandre makes Sisyphus look like a hard-nosed pragmatist, it
> seems pretty clear that TiVO impinges "[my] freedom to run the
> program, for any purpose" if "any purpose" includes "make my TiVO do
> what I want," and
Much as I hate to extend the life of this execrable thread, since I
think Alexandre makes Sisyphus look like a hard-nosed pragmatist, it
seems pretty clear that TiVO impinges [my] freedom to run the
program, for any purpose if any purpose includes make my TiVO do
what I want, and likewise to
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 design, they build a machine, they sell it as is, and
The kernel you build from the source code that Tivo distributes must
be accepted by Tivo's hardware without making other modifications (to
Tivo's hardware or bootloader). If that is possible, I will retract
what I said. If it is not possible, they are omitting part of the
program's source
I do not say that the BIOS is doing anything (legally) wrong. The
wrong act is distributing the binary kernel image without distributing
complete source code for it.
Why are you not complaining that Linus does not distribute the keys he uses
to sign kernel source distributions? If a digital
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, and only the GPL allows them to.
Why does the
Most of this list has
already dismissed your rather unique -- I would even say frivolous --
idea of how far mere aggregation goes: I, for one, have better
things to do than explain why a C file is not a mere aggregation of
the functions it contains.)
Michael Poole
Of course it's not mere
By creative combination do you mean what US copyright law refers to
as compilations (or their subset collective works)?
Not only. By creative combination I mean either a compilation or a
derivative work. I was a bit unclear about that because I wasn't really
addressing compilation rights at
I believe compilation copyrights do bear on GPL-licensed software, by
virtue of the GPL's sentence [...] rather, the intent is to exercise
the right to control the distribution of derivative _or collective_
works based on the Program. (emphasis added).
Ahh, good. So there's no problem with
> > You keep smuggling in the same assumption without ever
> > defending it. There
> > is a user. There is a person who gets to decide what software runs on a
> > particular piece of hardware. You keep assuming they must be the same
> > person.
> No, I'm just saying that whoever gets to decide
> Right. All GPL can say is that you cannot impose further restrictions
> on how the user adapts the software, and since the user runs the
> software on that computer, that means you must not restrict the user's
> ability to upgrade or otherwise replace that software there, when you
> gave the
> > The GPL was never about allowing you to load modified software
> > onto hardware
> > where the legitimate creators/owners of that hardware say, "no,
> > you may not
> > modify the software running on this hardware".
> Good try but you had to add creators there so the sentence actually
>
> On Jun 18, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why is the fact that only the root user can load a kernel module not a
> > further restriction?
> Because the user (under whose control the computer is, be it person or
> company) set up
The GPL was never about allowing you to load modified software
onto hardware
where the legitimate creators/owners of that hardware say, no,
you may not
modify the software running on this hardware.
Good try but you had to add creators there so the sentence actually
supported your
On Jun 18, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is the fact that only the root user can load a kernel module not a
further restriction?
Because the user (under whose control the computer is, be it person or
company) set up the root password herself?
Well, duh. TiVo, under
Right. All GPL can say is that you cannot impose further restrictions
on how the user adapts the software, and since the user runs the
software on that computer, that means you must not restrict the user's
ability to upgrade or otherwise replace that software there, when you
gave the user
You keep smuggling in the same assumption without ever
defending it. There
is a user. There is a person who gets to decide what software runs on a
particular piece of hardware. You keep assuming they must be the same
person.
No, I'm just saying that whoever gets to decide cannot
> This is a very limited reading of the GPL that leaves out one of its
> most important provisions: the bit about "no further restrictions".
Why is the fact that only the root user can load a kernel module not a
further restriction? Simple -- anyone who is bothered by that restriction
can remove
> David Schwartz writes:
> >> First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not
> >> belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there.
> > No, this is incorrect. They buy *some* of the rights to the
> > hardware but not
> > all
> The box could even be sold by third party vendors, I think they may even
> have started off that way, my old Series 1 had a big Philips logo on it.
> So now we make sure that this hardware refuses to boot any unsigned
> code, but it wasn't shipped containing GPLv3 software, so it's license
>
> First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not
> belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there.
No, this is incorrect. They buy *some* of the rights to the hardware but not
all of them. Specifically, they do not buy the right to choose what software
runs on that
> > But you're not the user of the software on my laptop. I am.
> ahh, but by your own argument you aren't
Let's not confuse owner with user and let's not confuse ownership of
copyrights with ownership of particular copies.
> the software on your laptop is owned by people like Linus, Al Viro,
> > Any number of ways. For example, you probably don't connect the
> > serial ports
> > to a device I have access to.
> But you're not the user of the software on my laptop. I am.
Even when I get web pages from your web server?
> > I'm sorry, who is "the user"? Who exactly is supposed to be
> > Sure, and you use the hardware to stop me from modifying the
> > Linux on your
> > laptop.
> Do I? How so?
Any number of ways. For example, you probably don't connect the serial ports
to a device I have access to.
> >> You don't use the software in my laptop. The laptop is not yours.
>
> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>
> > In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
> > software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
> > tamperproof to random end consumers).
>
>
> Ok, can I please rewrite my argument to:
>
> "The hardware manufacturer has built a custom BIOS and also written
> Linux kernel support for said BIOS. They have released the kernel
> drivers under GPL as required, but have not released the code to the
> BIOS, instead just releasing the
Ok, can I please rewrite my argument to:
The hardware manufacturer has built a custom BIOS and also written
Linux kernel support for said BIOS. They have released the kernel
drivers under GPL as required, but have not released the code to the
BIOS, instead just releasing the interface
On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
In the USSA it is arguable that wireless might need it (if done in
software) for certain properties. (The argument being it must be
tamperproof to random end consumers).
But this is not
Sure, and you use the hardware to stop me from modifying the
Linux on your
laptop.
Do I? How so?
Any number of ways. For example, you probably don't connect the serial ports
to a device I have access to.
You don't use the software in my laptop. The laptop is not yours.
You have no
Any number of ways. For example, you probably don't connect the
serial ports
to a device I have access to.
But you're not the user of the software on my laptop. I am.
Even when I get web pages from your web server?
I'm sorry, who is the user? Who exactly is supposed to be
able to
But you're not the user of the software on my laptop. I am.
ahh, but by your own argument you aren't
Let's not confuse owner with user and let's not confuse ownership of
copyrights with ownership of particular copies.
the software on your laptop is owned by people like Linus, Al Viro,
First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not
belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there.
No, this is incorrect. They buy *some* of the rights to the hardware but not
all of them. Specifically, they do not buy the right to choose what software
runs on that
The box could even be sold by third party vendors, I think they may even
have started off that way, my old Series 1 had a big Philips logo on it.
So now we make sure that this hardware refuses to boot any unsigned
code, but it wasn't shipped containing GPLv3 software, so it's license
terms
David Schwartz writes:
First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not
belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there.
No, this is incorrect. They buy *some* of the rights to the
hardware but not
all of them. Specifically, they do not buy the right
This is a very limited reading of the GPL that leaves out one of its
most important provisions: the bit about no further restrictions.
Why is the fact that only the root user can load a kernel module not a
further restriction? Simple -- anyone who is bothered by that restriction
can remove it
> On Jun 16, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, this is completely and utterly wrong. By this logic, Linux
> > isn't free if
> > I can't run it on *YOUR* laptop. TiVo places restrictions on
> > *hardware*. The
> > hardwa
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
> > *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on
> > *REPLACEMENT* of the program.
> Technicality. In order for the software to
On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
*modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction on
*REPLACEMENT* of the program.
Technicality. In order for the software to remain free
On Jun 16, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, this is completely and utterly wrong. By this logic, Linux
isn't free if
I can't run it on *YOUR* laptop. TiVo places restrictions on
*hardware*. The
hardware is not free.
TiVo uses the hardware to stop the user from
By the way, the unfortunate answer to the question of what the default
position is when contributions to a collective work are received without
explicit license, at least in the United States, is:
"In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights
under it, the owner of
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:47, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The GPL does not require it to be easy in fact to modify the piece of
> > software.
> Yes it does, section 3: "The source code for a work means the
> preferred form
> of the work for making modificatio
> As long as it's not distributed "as part of a whole which is a work
> based on the Program", there's no problem.
>
> You seem to be suggesting that even linking the Program together with
> other stuff doesn't create a 'work based on the Program'. You seem claim
> it's "mere aggregation on a
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:47, David Schwartz wrote:
The GPL does not require it to be easy in fact to modify the piece of
software.
Yes it does, section 3: The source code for a work means the
preferred form
of the work for making modifications to it. It then even lists that you
need
As long as it's not distributed as part of a whole which is a work
based on the Program, there's no problem.
You seem to be suggesting that even linking the Program together with
other stuff doesn't create a 'work based on the Program'. You seem claim
it's mere aggregation on a volume of a
By the way, the unfortunate answer to the question of what the default
position is when contributions to a collective work are received without
explicit license, at least in the United States, is:
In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights
under it, the owner of
> Perhaps the FSF will in future remember to pack a copy of the GPL in each
> of its md5sum files on the mirror if this is a derivative work, and
> modify the bittorrent protocol to include a copy of the GPL in the seed
> files 8)
>
> Alan
I realize you're joking, but for the benefit of anyone
> Do you even understand what "tit-for-tat" means?
I don't. Could someone please explain it. Specifically:
1) What is "tat"?
2) How can I get some?
3) Where do I go to trade it in?
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
> > Since the Linux kernel as a whole does not have a single author, it is
> > impossible to license it as a whole. Nobody has the authority
> > to do that.
> > (The GPL is not a copyright assignment type license.)
> Actually, Linus Torvalds, as maintainer, probably has a
> compilation
> Can you explain to me how it is that the Tivoization provisions (the
> only objection you have to GPLv3) conflict with this?
Is it really that hard to understand? GPLv2 applied only to works people
chose to place under that license or to works that contain so much code that
someone chose to
> Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me
> -- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs,
> outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have
> the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even
>
> What about if your GPL program ends up in a piece of hardware
> (e.g. a ROM,
> or an embedded ROM, or if it's some GPL code from OpenCores, as gate
> netlist in silicon)? My interpretation is that you need a permission from
> the author for doing that, unless there's an easy way to replace
> it
> The GPL applies to "the Program" which in this case is the Linux kernel
> as a whole and it in fact does indicate a specific version. All code
> submitted and included in this program has has been submitted with the
> understanding that the work as a whole is specifically licensed as
> GPLv2.
The GPL applies to the Program which in this case is the Linux kernel
as a whole and it in fact does indicate a specific version. All code
submitted and included in this program has has been submitted with the
understanding that the work as a whole is specifically licensed as
GPLv2. Some
What about if your GPL program ends up in a piece of hardware
(e.g. a ROM,
or an embedded ROM, or if it's some GPL code from OpenCores, as gate
netlist in silicon)? My interpretation is that you need a permission from
the author for doing that, unless there's an easy way to replace
it with
Oh, come on: you're not serious, right? Something indeed prevents me
-- the fact that I'm not a hardware manufacturer, I don't have fabs,
outsource vendors to provide me w/ designs, ASICs, etc. Nor to I have
the money to pay one-off prices for various components if they're even
available in
Can you explain to me how it is that the Tivoization provisions (the
only objection you have to GPLv3) conflict with this?
Is it really that hard to understand? GPLv2 applied only to works people
chose to place under that license or to works that contain so much code that
someone chose to
Since the Linux kernel as a whole does not have a single author, it is
impossible to license it as a whole. Nobody has the authority
to do that.
(The GPL is not a copyright assignment type license.)
Actually, Linus Torvalds, as maintainer, probably has a
compilation copyright.
See
Do you even understand what tit-for-tat means?
I don't. Could someone please explain it. Specifically:
1) What is tat?
2) How can I get some?
3) Where do I go to trade it in?
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
Perhaps the FSF will in future remember to pack a copy of the GPL in each
of its md5sum files on the mirror if this is a derivative work, and
modify the bittorrent protocol to include a copy of the GPL in the seed
files 8)
Alan
I realize you're joking, but for the benefit of anyone who
> So, the idea was raised about seeing if there was a way to blow the PC
> speaker by loading a kernel module. If so, a mass-deployment of a
> kernel module overnight would take care of the PC speaker problem once
> and for all.
No way. None of the conceivable ways of burning out hardware are
> > >I'd say impossible. Just disconnect it from the motherboard.
> >
> > The days when hardware *relied* on software (hence, where software
> > could damage hardware) are over.
> Nice theory but you can destroy or render useless a fair amount of PC
> hardware via software, usually because the
I'd say impossible. Just disconnect it from the motherboard.
The days when hardware *relied* on software (hence, where software
could damage hardware) are over.
Nice theory but you can destroy or render useless a fair amount of PC
hardware via software, usually because the thing is
So, the idea was raised about seeing if there was a way to blow the PC
speaker by loading a kernel module. If so, a mass-deployment of a
kernel module overnight would take care of the PC speaker problem once
and for all.
No way. None of the conceivable ways of burning out hardware are
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1915720,00.asp
> has the answer. Quoting Linus:
>
> "If you want to license a program under any later version of the
> GPL, you have
> to state so explicitly. Linux never did."
>
> Hence, unless there's a "GPL 2 or later", all the "unspecified GPL" files
>
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1915720,00.asp
has the answer. Quoting Linus:
If you want to license a program under any later version of the
GPL, you have
to state so explicitly. Linux never did.
Hence, unless there's a GPL 2 or later, all the unspecified GPL files
are GPL2 only.
> But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
> will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
> Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
> and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
That is a
But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it
will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other
Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3
and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too.
That is a
Aaron Wiebe wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
> > There is no way you can re-try the request. The open must
> > either succeed or
> > not return a handle. It is not like a 'read' operation that has
> > an "I didn't
> > do anything, and you can retry this r
Aaron Wiebe wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
There is no way you can re-try the request. The open must
either succeed or
not return a handle. It is not like a 'read' operation that has
an I didn't
do anything, and you can retry this request option.
If 'open' returns a file handle
> Now, Netapp speed aside, O_NONBLOCK and O_DIRECT seem to make zero
> difference to my open times. Example:
>
> open("/somefile", O_WRONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_CREAT, 0644) = 1621 <0.415147>
How could they make any difference? I can't think of any conceivable way
they could.
> Now, I'm a userspace
Now, Netapp speed aside, O_NONBLOCK and O_DIRECT seem to make zero
difference to my open times. Example:
open(/somefile, O_WRONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_CREAT, 0644) = 1621 0.415147
How could they make any difference? I can't think of any conceivable way
they could.
Now, I'm a userspace guy so I
201 - 300 of 676 matches
Mail list logo
