On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:47 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
> > > > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:47 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be
different.
Sure
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released
> > under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you
&
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released
under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you
want from me? A promise I
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO,
it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what
FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO,
it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what
FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware.
D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually
(and clearly) there. It's the missing source case
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 18:25 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
[...]
> > A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed);
> > B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A;
> > C - is another
[I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
threading somehow.]
Sven Luther wrote:
> The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
are the
> ones handling the infrastructure, and putting their responsability on the
> stake. If they feel that
[I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
threading somehow.]
Sven Luther wrote:
The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
are the
ones handling the infrastructure, and putting their responsability on the
stake. If they feel that some
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 18:25 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
[...]
A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed);
B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A;
C - is another user, who got a copy indirectly
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware.
D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually
(and clearly) there. It's the missing source case
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 July 2001 12:33, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > Oh, yes, since that PAGE_AGE_BG_INTERACTIVE_MINIMUM is applied only
> > when background aging, maybe it's not enough to keep processes like
> > updatedb from caus
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 02 July 2001 20:42, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > > I'm not sure that, in general, recent pages with only one access are
> > > still better eviction candidates compared
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Monday 02 July 2001 20:42, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
I'm not sure that, in general, recent pages with only one access are
still better eviction candidates compared to 8 hours old pages. Here
we need
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Tuesday 03 July 2001 12:33, Marco Colombo wrote:
Oh, yes, since that PAGE_AGE_BG_INTERACTIVE_MINIMUM is applied only
when background aging, maybe it's not enough to keep processes like
updatedb from causing interactive pages to be evicted
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure that, in general, recent pages with only one access are
> > still better eviction candidates compared to 8 hours old pages. Here
> > we need either another way to detect
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
I'm not sure that, in general, recent pages with only one access are
still better eviction candidates compared to 8 hours old pages. Here
we need either another way to detect one-shot activity (like the one
olve
Mike's problem, that is.
>
> --
> Daniel
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lk
linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
no hints on its VM behaviour) just punish it.
I mean, when tuning the VM behaviour, system health and friendly
applications performance are the goals - do whatever necessary to preserve
them, even kill the offender and rm its executable if someone it's
running it again (
g something obvious?
Just write a small program that chroots, drop privileges, and
execs the untrusted daemon.
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r
s
to realize what that exactly means (both as a fact and as concept)
and reconsider the part "but you cannot fool all of the people
all of the time" (just s/people/business people/ and re-read). B-)
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ /
fool all of the people
all of the time (just s/people/business people/ and re-read). B-)
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l
.
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
the offender and rm its executable if someone it's
running it again (*grin*) B-).
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l
one going to Oracle and say "Your SW is now GPLed, hand me the Source.
Resistance is Futile." ... GPL has a viral behaviour iff you want to
keep using the GPLed part that you included, or am I missing something?
.TM.
--
____/ / /
/ / / M
.
Resistance is Futile. ... GPL has a viral behaviour iff you want to
keep using the GPLed part that you included, or am I missing something?
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
to a sanity check to
disallow absurdly sized requests, IIRC.
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAI
.
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > >
> > > case xxx:
> > > /* fallthrough */ ;
> > > }
> > >
> > > or something (or maybe just a "break" stateme
On 10 Jan 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Marco Colombo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But what happens if I delete the stm1 line? We have:
> >
> > case xxx:
> > /* fallthrough */
> > case yyy:
> > stm2;
> &
uot; even if there are other statements:
for(;;) {
stm1;
if (condition) {
break;
}
stm2;
continue;
}
(it's like a comment that says "loop again", opposed to the break which
sa
stm2;
continue;
}
(it's like a comment that says "loop again", opposed to the break which
says "stop looping") but I agree that's overkill. B-)
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ /
On 10 Jan 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
Marco Colombo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But what happens if I delete the stm1 line? We have:
case xxx:
/* fallthrough */
case yyy:
stm2;
which is wrong.
AFAIK, that's perfectly correct. It's only
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
case xxx:
/* fallthrough */ ;
}
or something (or maybe just a "break" statement), just so that we don't
turn the poor C language into line noise (can anybody
E530TX VIA based and one named
DFE530TX+ rtl based? Isn't it a bit confusing? B-)
>
> Jim
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/
ia-rhine?
I had problems with the 530. I've been told that the 538 (rtl8139) works
under the same load (NFS server on a small LAN, and a 5-ports D-Link Switch),
even with the old driver.
.TM.
--
/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___
te
> > This message is copyright 2000, all rights reserved.
> > Views expressed are my own, not necessarily shared by my employer.
> > --
>
>
.TM.
--
(rtl8139) works
under the same load (NFS server on a small LAN, and a 5-ports D-Link Switch),
even with the old driver.
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
robably worried about the internals of their HW).
>
> be nice if the binary module thing could be clarified by the copyright
> holders.
Of course.
>
> --paulj
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
&g
ond edition. Of course the only release of Perfect OS will be 1.0!
B-) B-) B-) B-)
>
> -M
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
he line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / /
aulj
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
_
performance).
The DPTA-372050 does 20MB/sec on an Athlon MB, BTW. A DTLA-307030 does
35.5MB/sec on AMD-751/6-based boards (UDMA/66). But you know that... B-)
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / /
line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
good or am I missing something?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ /
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > They are niced because the user thinks them a bit less
> > > important.
> >
> > Please don
OM time, I'd not even look at the nice of a process at
all. But my point here is that you do, and you take it as an hint for
process importance as percieved by the user that run it, and I believe
it's just wrong guessing).
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / /
e, I'd not even look at the nice of a process at
all. But my point here is that you do, and you take it as an hint for
process importance as percieved by the user that run it, and I believe
it's just wrong guessing).
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / /
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Marco Colombo wrote:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
[...]
They are niced because the user thinks them a bit less
important.
Please don't, this assumption is quite wrong. I use nice just to
be 'nice
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just upgraded our server (486DX2/120, running 186 days`) with a 100MBit
^^
isn't it overclocked?
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marc
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Simon Richter wrote:
Hi,
I just upgraded our server (486DX2/120, running 186 days`) with a 100MBit
^^
isn't it overclocked?
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
er that stop for not being able to fill the template? You *really*
believe this is a likely scenario?
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
___
ust do the same?
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list
er product, in the end,
and since you find it useful to you, in primis, it makes *your* life
easier.
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscr
the same?
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Marco Colombo wrote:
> >
> > As you said, the are two kinds of reactions. I don't understand why you
> > think that the presence of a debugger will *prevent* people from doing
> > the Righ
ED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
.TM.
--
____/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe f
ml/
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Marco Colombo wrote:
As you said, the are two kinds of reactions. I don't understand why you
think that the presence of a debugger will *prevent* people from doing
the Right Thing and "think about problems anothe
way.
So they'll never make their way into YOUR kernel.
But please don't say that debuggers are bad for everyone... others may
be able to close their eyes and "look at the Source" even in the
presence of a debugger...
IMHO, there good reasons to leave a debu
ay that debuggers are bad for everyone... others may
be able to close their eyes and "look at the Source" even in the
presence of a debugger...
IMHO, there good reasons to leave a debugger out. Technical ones.
You don't need a religious one.
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ /
e20)
fgrep Fix 2.2.18-changes | wc -l
16
B-)
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [
here?
Do you consider the above problem "critical"? B-)
>
> Have a nice day ;)
> Erik McKee
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read t
alsh| Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Voice: (650) 933-5338
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / /
e Linux, SGI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Voice: (650) 933-5338
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/
-changes | wc -l
16
B-)
.TM.
--
/ / /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_/ _/ _/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe
ED] "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
> Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTE
70 matches
Mail list logo
