On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:29PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> >It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
> >Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
> >misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
> >unexpected. And to the comment "It i
Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrit :
[...]
> When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk
> about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable
> drivers if they want to.
May be said vendors should give a look at l-k between 2.2 and 2.4 instead
of spendi
At 08:34 PM 02/16/2001, Neal Dias wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
>Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
>misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
>unexpecte
> Speaking as a Linux _USER_, if this happens, can I get said print
> engine working on my ARM machines with these closed source drivers?
> Can Alpha users get this print system working? Can Sparc uses
> get it working? What? I can't? They can't? Well, its no good to
> me nor them. You've j
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 01:37:58PM +, Russell King wrote:
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen writes:
> > But at least I would be happy if there would be a printing
> > engine that is entirely open source and all the printer vendors can
> > write a small, closed source stub that drives their printer
At 05:31 PM 02/16/2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> > bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> > "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source"
I'm using these drivers just fine on a couple of streaming servers that
get hit pretty hard.
Dennis wrote:
> both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that
> they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that
> it is problematic.
--
=
>
>Fortunately despite your best efforts there is now a choice in 2.4
When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk
about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable
drivers if they want to.
db
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
At 05:20 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > crappy GPL code that l
>Henning P. Schmiedehausen writes:
>> But at least I would be happy if there would be a printing
>> engine that is entirely open source and all the printer vendors can
>> write a small, closed source stub that drives their printer over
>> parallel port, ethernet or USB and give us all the features
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:58:45PM +0100, Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> > If IBM, Intel, Compaq, HP, Dell, SGI and other companies would
> > wholeheartedly drop their Windows support in favour of Linux, that I
> > would call "a move"
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > > > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> > > But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
> > US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:20:34PM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> The patent
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:41:57PM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> If HP would spent only 5% of their driver writing
> buget for Windows into Linux driver development, that I would call "a
> move".
Have you seen this: http://hp.sourceforge.net/
I certainly don't know what the
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrit :
[...]
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > crappy GPL code
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:20:54PM -0800, Mike Pontillo wrote:
[snip]
> Assuming I am a corporate entity and I need to spend a few bucks to fix
> a GPL driver, just because I fix it and deploy my fix on my corporation's
> internal network machines -- and quite possibly benefit the hell out of
*** Please drop me from the CC: and To: lists before replying to this.
*** I do read linux-kernel, so there is no need to send me two copies
*** of your replies.
Henning P. Schmiedehausen writes:
> But at least I would be happy if there would be a printing
> engine that is entirely open source an
At 09:32 PM 2/16/01, Dan Hollis wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, David Relson wrote:
> > At 08:52 PM 2/16/01, you wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > > > > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> > > > But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
> >
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:46:30PM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
>
> No. A license doesn't automatically make good code.
true but at least with GPL, people can work on crap GPL code and make
it good. that's an option you don't have with closed sou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael H. Warfield) writes:
> But wasn't that Xerox that had that? Yeah, the same ones that
>screwed us over with the compression patent that shot .gif images out
>of the sky. There was inovation for you.
Wrong company. You may want to check your facts before bashing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike A. Harris) writes:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
>>The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
>>bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
>>"sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" sol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Cox) writes:
>> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
>> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
>> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
>> crappy GPL code that lock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Augustin Vidovic) writes:
>1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
No. A license doesn't automatically make good code.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienst
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:35:02PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote:
> > > I did some research on the patent database and found nothing regarding such
> > > a patent. There's patent on word processors (
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote:
> I did some research on the patent database and found nothing regarding such
> a patent. There's patent on word processors (not the concept but related to)
> and uses tab on the description...and that patent is from 1980.
Perhaps that's it, then
>> > > > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
>> > > But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
>> > US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.
>> The patent was for using the technique of using XOR for dragging/moving
>> parts of a graphics image without erasi
>
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
Hahahaha.
Dennis, the only linux network drivers that I have had serious problems
with were yours. They caused kernel panic on 2.0.30+ every 6 hours. Of
course I did not have the source to fix them. In comparision eepro100
works rock solid on all of my machines that use it.
Will I use some binary
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, David Relson wrote:
> At 08:52 PM 2/16/01, you wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > > > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> > > But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
> > US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.
>
At 08:52 PM 2/16/01, you wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> >But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
>
> US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.
The patent was for using the technique of usin
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 05:27:31PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL
Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> Actually I do. Perhaps I should define enterprise as "big iron". In
> that way, enterprise kernels would be far more innovative than a
> secure kernel (which cares less about performance gains and large
> features and more about just being "secure").
Hmm, and if you wa
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > You know XOR is patented (yes, the logical bit operation XOR).
> But wasn't that Xerox that had that?
US Patent #4,197,590 held by NuGraphics, Inc.
> Yeah, the same ones that screwed us over with the compression patent
> that shot .gif im
"David D.W. Downey" wrote:
>
> Seriously though folks, look at who's doing this!
>
> They've already tried once to sue 'Linux', were told they couldn't because
> Linux is a non-entity (or at least one that they can not effectively sue
> due to the classification Linux holds), ...
---
Not
Werner Almesberger wrote:
>
> Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> > My feeling is we should splinter the kernel development for
> > different purposes (enterprise, UP, security, etc.). I'm sure
> > it isn't a popular view, but I feel it would allow faster progression
> > of kernel functionality and featur
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:35:02PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote:
> > I did some research on the patent database and found nothing regarding such
> > a patent. There's patent on word processors (not the concept but related to)
> > and uses tab on the d
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Carlos Fernandez Sanz wrote:
> I did some research on the patent database and found nothing regarding such
> a patent. There's patent on word processors (not the concept but related to)
> and uses tab on the description...and that patent is from 1980.
You know XOR is patented
Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> My feeling is we should splinter the kernel development for
> different purposes (enterprise, UP, security, etc.). I'm sure
> it isn't a popular view, but I feel it would allow faster progression
> of kernel functionality and features in the long run.
"enterprise" XOR s
Dennis wrote:
...
> objective, arent we?
Nope. Are you claiming to be?
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
... Rant deleted
I had a problem with eepro100.
It was fixed same nigh
"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Matt D. Robinson wrote:
>
> >The day the Linux kernel splinters into multiple, distinct efforts is the
> >day I'll believe the kernel is fully into progress over "preference". Right
> >now, Alan accepts what he thinks should go into stable kernels,
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David D.W. Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Rik van Riel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Alan Olsen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mark Haney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 15:1
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> objective, arent we?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> to comment on it as such.
What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
than I ever have in my 18+ years of bein
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Matt D. Robinson wrote:
>The day the Linux kernel splinters into multiple, distinct efforts is the
>day I'll believe the kernel is fully into progress over "preference". Right
>now, Alan accepts what he thinks should go into stable kernels, and Linus
>accepts what he thinks
The day the Linux kernel splinters into multiple, distinct efforts is the
day I'll believe the kernel is fully into progress over "preference". Right
now, Alan accepts what he thinks should go into stable kernels, and Linus
accepts what he thinks should go into future kernels. I'm not saying the
On the surface you seem to make some good points.
In reality ... ??
Money doesn't buy the ability to innovate!
OSS doesn't, magically, enhance the ability to innovate, aither!
No one can predict where and why an innovation occurs.
The only thing that OSS does to MS is to prohibit them for capita
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
>The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
>bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
>"sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
>when they are wholly inferior. You'
Dennis wrote:
> objective, arent we?
You might ask yourself the same question...
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead
ROTFL, man this guy is funny.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> At 02:48 PM 02/16/2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
> > >On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
> > >
> > >> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> > >> Nice little article o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
unexpected. And to the comment "It is not American to ste
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
> when they are wholly inferior. Y
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spendin
At 02:48 PM 02/16/2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
> >On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
> >
> >> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> >> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> >> repeated exposition to Linux.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, David D.W. Downey wrote:
> Would someone tell me where you get all this lovely information on
> patents held by M$? I can't find anything.
Sorry, it's *IBM* who are said to hold a patent on the tab key.
Legend has it Microsoft once found a patent of theirs which IBM appeare
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Andrew Scott wrote:
>On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
>
>> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
>> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
>> repeated exposition to Linux...
>> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-990
Would someone tell me where you get all this lovely information on
patents held by M$? I can't find anything.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >
> > > I expect the next thing that will happen
>> On the other hand:
>> ''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this
>> for the software business and the intellectual-property business.''
>Linux IS (part of) the software business, though! That's like saying
>Walmart is bad for shops - it is bad for OTHER, COMPETING shops.
Actual
A good article on linux today about this.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-02-15-003-20-OP
Byron
fsnchzjr wrote:
> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> repeated exposition to Linux...
> http://
ECTED]
cc:(bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
Subject: Re: Linux stifles innovation...
On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> repeated expositio
Riel; Alan Olsen; David D.W. Downey;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux stifles innovation...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Okay, so if we are going to get real stupid about the whole thing, I
> wonder if Microsloth is going to patent the patent?
Filing nuisance patents for obvious stuff whic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Okay, so if we are going to get real stupid about the whole thing, I
> wonder if Microsloth is going to patent the patent?
Filing nuisance patents for obvious stuff which shouldn't ever get granted
is a viable business method and as such is patentable in the US.
After
Olsen; David D.W. Downey; Mark Haney;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Linux stifles innovation...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
>
> > I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get
> > patents on key portions of t
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
>
> > I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get
> > patents on key portions of their protocols and then start
> > enforcing them.
>
> If Microsoft would start pissing off IBM and other major
>
On 15 Feb 2001, at 9:49, fsnchzjr wrote:
> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> repeated exposition to Linux...
> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
> g=ltnc
That's ab
James Sutherland wrote:
> > I see no problem with that though. And those who want to get
> > paid for computing work? No problem. There is always support.
>
> Hrm. Getting paid to write code is preferable, IMHO...
You can still get paid for writing something new. I have heard about
business
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get
> patents on key portions of their protocols and then start
> enforcing them.
If Microsoft would start pissing off IBM and other major
companies which have big business interests in Linux by
i
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Helge Hafting wrote:
> They are wrong about linux stifling innovation, there is plenty of
> innovation in linux itself.
Indeed. If Linux did nothing new, what do they have to fear?!
> On the other hand:
> ''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this
> for the
They are wrong about linux stifling innovation, there
is plenty of innovation in linux itself.
On the other hand:
''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this
for the software business and the intellectual-property business.''
Sure. Linux *is* bad for the IP business. Open source
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Bill Wendling wrote:
> With the horrid (pro-Microsoft) Aschroft in office, who knows what MS
> can get away with. Not to mention all of the pro-business, anti-human
> cronies in Washington running the Presidency (cause \/\/ just can't do
> it).
Most of the pro-business peopl
Also sprach Alan Olsen:
} I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get patents on
} key portions of their protocols and then start enforcing them.
}
Which protocols would that be? TCP/IP wasn't invented by them.
} I wonder what kind of law they will try to push to outlaw Open S
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "I'm an American, I believe in the American Way, I worry if the
> government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done
> enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."
>
It is not American to steal. The first "Flight S
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> I expect the next thing that will happen is that they will get patents on
> key portions of their protocols and then start enforcing them.
>
They can only patent their own creations. I'd like to see them try to get
patents for their "extensions" to TCP or
"I'm an American, I believe in the American Way, I worry if the
government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done
enough education of policy makers to understand the threat."
He believes in the "Golden Rule" too...
Can you say "NSA" or "Secure Linux"?
I believe they are truly
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, David D.W. Downey wrote:
> Seriously though folks, look at who's doing this!
>
> They've already tried once to sue 'Linux', were told they couldn't because
> Linux is a non-entity (or at least one that they can not effectively sue
> due to the classification Linux holds), an
Seriously though folks, look at who's doing this!
They've already tried once to sue 'Linux', were told they couldn't because
Linux is a non-entity (or at least one that they can not effectively sue
due to the classification Linux holds), and now they can't use their
second favorite tactic for st
CTED]'
Subject: Linux stifles innovation...
Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
repeated exposition to Linux...
http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
g=ltnc
-
To
* fsnchzjr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
> Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
> repeated exposition to Linux...
> http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
Just reme
Watch Microsoft's Jim Allchin go Linux-bashing!!!
Nice little article on how we're all going to die of herpes from our
repeated exposition to Linux...
http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?ta
g=ltnc
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lin
101 - 176 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
