[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ingo Molnar) wrote on 05.09.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> debugging tools are not necesserily the most important goal to help the
> Linux kernel. IMO we rather need people who have a deeper understanding of
> things - even if this makes support a bit harder. If it was up to th
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > They seem focused on keeping us in the dark ages. We need tools to make
> > it faster and easier for folks to perform kernel development and make
> > field support of Linux easier.
>
> tools can sometimes bring the dark ages faster than anything else.
However, if Jeff w
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> [...] so it takes me longer to ponder and digest things -- [...]
i'll quote a few 'digesting' comments of you:
- about the Linux networking code:
" [...] what a mess indeed. "
- about Linux itself:
" The lack of a Kernel Debugger and other basic k
Ingo,
I did read it. You have to understand, I'm not a young guy but an old
man, so it takes me longer to ponder and digest things -- not because
I'm slower, but becasue I'm older. I used to blindy charge at anything
when a red flag was waved in front of my face in my youth. As I got
older, I
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Your arguments are personal, not technical. [...]
> >
> > no, my arguments are technical, but are simply focused towards the
> > conceptual (horizontal) development of Linux, not the vertical
> > development of Linux (drivers
Jeff, please read Linus' mail for an explanation about the dangers of
kernel debuggers.
Ingo
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> Ingo,
>
> KDB is a user mode debugger designed to debug user space apps that's
> been hacked to run with a driver. It's not designed as a kernel
I loose track at times Stephen -- sorry. I was talking about kgdb with
this statement.
:-)
Jeff
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 09:44:54AM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > KDB is a user mode debugger designed to debug user space apps that's
> > been hack
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 09:44:54AM -0600, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> KDB is a user mode debugger designed to debug user space apps that's
> been hacked to run with a driver.
Absolutely not true. You're probably thinking about kgdb, the gdb
stub for remote kernel source level debugging.
kdb
> And I bet the lessons learned and the issues involved in those nights
> with printk will never leave your brain, you will remember precisely
> in the future next time you see the same types of symptoms what kinds
> of things to look for and where.
>
> This is what a debugger does not do for yo
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > > Ingo,
> > >
> > > KDB is a user mode debugger designed to debug user space apps that's
> > > been hacked to run with a driver. It's not designed as a kernel level
> > >
Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> >
> > Ingo,
> >
> > KDB is a user mode debugger designed to debug user space apps that's
> > been hacked to run with a driver. It's not designed as a kernel level
> > debugger and in real world situations has tons of shor
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> Ingo,
>
> KDB is a user mode debugger designed to debug user space apps that's
> been hacked to run with a driver. It's not designed as a kernel level
> debugger and in real world situations has tons of shortcomings period.
?!? KDB is a minimali
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> but the other IKD components, like the soft lockup detector, kernel
> tracer, leak detector and other goodies, are clearly intrusive. It's
> also a pain (and distraction) to 'drag' all that functionality along
> in a developer kernel - i'm sure Mike can at
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Damien Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> >> (What means 'social engineering attempts'?)
> >
> >Attempting to change people's habits by making it hard to debug.
> >
> > Hard work now leads to less work later.
>
> Lots of people (myself i
Ingo,
KDB is a user mode debugger designed to debug user space apps that's
been hacked to run with a driver. It's not designed as a kernel level
debugger and in real world situations has tons of shortcomings period.
If someone is working on a car, do they use a wrench, or just pry the
bolts lo
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
>Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:55:07 -0600
>From: Richard Gooch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> (What means 'social engineering attempts'?)
>
>Attempting to change people's habits by making it hard to debug.
>
> Hard work now leads to less work later.
This is
Hello all,
I feel the need to shed some light on this subject from the viewpoint of
one MUCH less capable than the others here.
Recently I purchased a PPC 7200. It is a beat up old mac that I could pick
up cheap. I have used intels since I was a boy (SysV3.3 on 386!) and saw
some characteristics
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, J. Dow wrote:
> If the Kernel Debugger creates faulty solutions through lack of
> thinking, and asking why, then surely printk is at least as bad
> because it allows somebody to view the operation of the kernel through
> a keyhole darkly. [...]
i'd like to quote David here,
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
>
>Here Mike, we need to update your email signature block to reflect your
>new avocation (this is where I try to be your mega-buddy). I think the
>reason I'm so obtuse is that God gave me such a thick skin (or perhaps a
>thick s
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Would you classify IKD as a pile of warts you wouldn't want to see in
> the kernel?
the quality of IKD is IMO excellent ( having written parts of it),
yet i wouldnt want to see it in the kernel. That having said, i *did*
author and integrate one of the
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, David S. Miller wrote:
>> (What means 'social engineering attempts'?)
>
>Attempting to change people's habits by making it hard to debug.
>
> Hard work now leads to less work later.
Lots of people (myself included) would like to be able to debug and
generally hack
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Simon Richter wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> ["FreeBSD will laugh at us"]
>
> > And Linux did not succeed because it was aimed "at the server market"
> > or "at the end user" but because there is a bunch of people _that_
> > _do_ _not_ _care_
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Mike Galbraith writes:
> > > Surely there must be some useful features that can be included in the
> > > kernel without uglyfing it or slowing it down (configed out)? Leaving
> > > aside the social engineering attempts, of course :-)
> >
> > They can al
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> "Make it easy" is OK, unless it is followed by "for lusers". And anyone
> saying that code reviews are not practical can go and fuck himself. He
> will, anyway. Code reviews are MUST. I have no problems with folks who
> want to have debugger in addition to that. I consid
On 4 Sep 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
["FreeBSD will laugh at us"]
> And Linux did not succeed because it was aimed "at the server market"
> or "at the end user" but because there is a bunch of people _that_
> _do_ _not_ _care_ _at_ _all_ about the "marketability" of a feature
> but fo
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:55:07 -0600
From: Richard Gooch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (What means 'social engineering attempts'?)
Attempting to change people's habits by making it hard to debug.
Hard work now leads to less work later.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscr
Mike Galbraith writes:
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > Ingo Molnar writes:
> >
> > > The reference kernel should be IMO 'untainted' though. Believe me,
> > > during the 2.3.2x pagecache rewrite my kernel was hacked with ad-hoc
> > > debugging code beyond recognition - eg. automatic
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Ingo Molnar writes:
>
> > The reference kernel should be IMO 'untainted' though. Believe me,
> > during the 2.3.2x pagecache rewrite my kernel was hacked with ad-hoc
> > debugging code beyond recognition - eg. automatic checksumming of
> > every physical
Date:Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:43:47 +0100 (BST)
From: Alex Buell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Only, with the former, I get to restart the application everytime it
> croaks, with the latter (modules excluded) I have to reboot. This is
> much more time consuming and means you really have
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> Perhaps you would like to describe how you do debug the kernel? I ask
> this because I use printf more often than anything else when
> debugging userland code and I often use printk when debugging the
> kernel.
I can't speak for DaveM, but... the mai
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, poke wrote:
>> Only, with the former, I get to restart the application everytime it
>> croaks, with the latter (modules excluded) I have to reboot. This is
>> much more time consuming and means you really have to be much smarter
>> about what checks and printk statements you p
> Only, with the former, I get to restart the application everytime it
> croaks, with the latter (modules excluded) I have to reboot. This is
> much more time consuming and means you really have to be much smarter
> about what checks and printk statements you put in where... the hope
> is with mor
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> Only, with the former, I get to restart the application everytime it
> croaks, with the latter (modules excluded) I have to reboot. This is
> much more time consuming and means you really have to be much smarter
> about what checks and printk statements
Ingo Molnar writes:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> > everyone has to start from nothing. But if the learning/development
> > curve is too steep, or the process is too frustrating, you are going
> > to lose a proportion of the potential gurus. You can't push people in
> > a dire
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:29:10 -0600
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"David S. Miller" wrote:
> Ummm... circa April 15th, 1998 ;-)))
They've got some newer stuff. The best way to get the latest numbers
would be to call Craig Miller 801-861-7000 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]),
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> A (better?) kernel debugger could help (certain) people to help improve
> the long term health, because they can't (or don't want) to use what's
> available,
like, brain?
> or just think they can't easely do it with them. It could help
> certain peo
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
>Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:08:03 -0600
>From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Go visit their website and review the materials directy -- these
>are their claims -- not mine. It's www.novell.com.
>
> Ummm... circa April 15th, 1998 ;-)))
They
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:08:03 -0600
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Go visit their website and review the materials directy -- these
are their claims -- not mine. It's www.novell.com.
Ummm... circa April 15th, 1998 ;-)))
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To un
David,
Go visit their website and review the materials directy -- these are
their claims -- not mine. It's www.novell.com.
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
>Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:15:52 -0600
>From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>It's got the highest numbers for any web s
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 05:30:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > A kernel debugger will reduce development costs. No one cares what's
> > underneath, [...]
>
> this is the point where IMO your argument gets flawed, and where you are
> apparently i
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:15:52 -0600
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's got the highest numbers for any web server on the planet on
Intel.
What is your metric for this claim? Last I checked Linux held the
record for the current version of specweb, specweb99.
Maybe Net
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> everyone has to start from nothing. But if the learning/development
> curve is too steep, or the process is too frustrating, you are going
> to lose a proportion of the potential gurus. You can't push people in
> a direction they don't want to go. [...]
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > [...] You guys can argue til your blue in the face as to why a kernel
> > debugger in Linux is bad -- [...]
>
> you havent yet replied to our arguments in substance, so i certainly will
> not continue arguing - with whom,
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> But there is no Copyright license in patch code.
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> I was under the understanding a "patch" to something GPL, means
> the "patch" is also GPL.
when IBM started working with the apache group their lawyers did a
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > no, my arguments are technical, but are simply focused towards the
> > conceptual (horizontal) development of Linux, not the vertical
> > development of Linux (drivers) and support issues.
>
> They seem focused on keeping us in the dark ages. [...]
> "Jeff" == Jeff V Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> you dont contribute a bit to the generic kernel and the kernel
>> infrastructure itself.
Jeff> I contribute code, time, and $$$, Ingo.
HAve you contributed code to anything but your own private project
which
All the stuff on our website and ftp servers is free Linux code and it
runs in the kernel. Novell's customers have been downloading it for
over a year. At any point, Linux is free to take it and use it. Lots
of Linux users already are.
Jeff
Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> > "Jeff" == Jeff V M
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > A kernel debugger will reduce development costs. No one cares what's
> > underneath, [...]
>
> this is the point where IMO your argument gets flawed, and where you are
> apparently ignoring our arguments. With utmost respe
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > I think the disconnect for you here is that you assume the Linux world
> > will remain constant [...]
>
> > [...] Just because Linux puts everything in user space does not mean
> > that's how the whole world should be. The
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > I think the disconnect for you here is that you assume the Linux world
> > > will remain constant [...]
> >
> > > [...] Just because Linux puts everything in user space does not mean
> > > that's how the whole world should be. There's a lot of ker
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > HAve you contributed code to anything but your own private project
> > which you have just declared to be withdrawn so you can go stick it
> > into your own custom OS? I don't remember seeing you contribute code
> > to any othe
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> A kernel debugger will reduce development costs. No one cares what's
> underneath, [...]
this is the point where IMO your argument gets flawed, and where you are
apparently ignoring our arguments. With utmost respect, we *do* care about
what's underne
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> [...] You guys can argue til your blue in the face as to why a kernel
> debugger in Linux is bad -- [...]
you havent yet replied to our arguments in substance, so i certainly will
not continue arguing - with whom, myself? ;)
Ingo
-
To unsubs
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> I think the disconnect for you here is that you assume the Linux world
> will remain constant [...]
> [...] Just because Linux puts everything in user space does not mean
> that's how the whole world should be. There's a lot of kernel
> development I'
Ingo Molnar writes:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > My point was basically that omitting useful debugging tools makes it
> > not any less likely that people use the (A) strategy (easy fix instead
> > of real understanding). For some people it is so painfull to work with
> > raw d
"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
Here Mike, we need to update your email signature block to reflect your
new avocation (this is where I try to be your mega-buddy). I think the
reason I'm so obtuse is that God gave me such a thick skin (or perhaps a
thick skull).
:-)
Jeff
> --
> Mike A. Harris
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Marek Habersack wrote:
>> > > Linux is more buggy than NT, but at least the source code comes with it
>> > > so there's no excuse for not getting soeone to fix it
>> > Excuse me for adding my irrelevant 0.2$ - but what are you doing with Linux
>> > then?? Why don't you j
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> Thats great. I'm sorry about the hard times up there It's good to see
> you being constructive.
>
I hope you understand why I need to pull this back right now. Linux
will get NDS when MANOS goes out, but only after we have an Open Source
NetWare that the Li
> M-Systems is in the process of creating a new driver that works as a module
> and contains no GPL code.
Fortunately other people are working on GPL M-Systems drivers, and also on
flash file systems that seem to avoid the billion vague m-systems patents.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send t
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > > Your arguments are personal, not technical. [...]
> >
> > no, my arguments are technical, but are simply focused towards the
> > conceptual (horizontal) development of Linux, not the vertica
Martin Dalecki wrote:
>
>
> And finally I would like to emphasize that every singe additional
> facility doesn't
> come free - It's adding complexity which is a source of possible
> problems in itself.
Some interesting mental mastrubation, but it not on topic. You guys can
argue til your blue
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > My point was basically that omitting useful debugging tools makes it
> > not any less likely that people use the (A) strategy (easy fix instead
> > of real understanding). For some people it is so painfull to work with
> > raw du
Ingo Molnar wrote:
you dont contribute a bit to the generic kernel and the kernel
> infrastructure itself.
>
I contribute code, time, and $$$, Ingo.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > A kernel debugger will reduce development costs. [...]
>
> ... of Jeff V. Merkey - possibly. You are too much focused on your own
> needs, you dont contribute a bit to the generic kernel and the kernel
> infrastructure its
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> A kernel debugger will reduce development costs. [...]
... of Jeff V. Merkey - possibly. You are too much focused on your own
needs, you dont contribute a bit to the generic kernel and the kernel
infrastructure itself.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > Your arguments are personal, not technical. [...]
>
> no, my arguments are technical, but are simply focused towards the
> conceptual (horizontal) development of Linux, not the vertical
> development of Linux (drivers) and
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > My point was basically that omitting useful debugging tools makes it
> > not any less likely that people use the (A) strategy (easy fix instead
> > of real understanding). For some people it is so painfull to work with
> > raw
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Your arguments are personal, not technical. [...]
no, my arguments are technical, but are simply focused towards the
conceptual (horizontal) development of Linux, not the vertical
development of Linux (drivers) and support issues.
Ingo
-
To
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> My point was basically that omitting useful debugging tools makes it
> not any less likely that people use the (A) strategy (easy fix instead
> of real understanding). For some people it is so painfull to work with
> raw dumps that they want to get out of
Ingo,
Your arguments are personal, not technical. Which billiob dollar
company did you support with 70 million customers exactly? Not having
this out in the field makes folks jobs 100 times harder and more costly
for companies to support. When and if you ever run your own business,
you'll un
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> I spend my time thinking. But I prefer to spend it thinking about the
> bug not about finding it and how long fsck takes. [...]
if we only optimize for the debugging time spent by seasoned kernel
developers then you are completely right. But if we optimize
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I don't really believe that. It is as easy to add a silly NULL pointer
> check based on a oops as it is after a debugging session (and it is
> even likely you chose the simple fix because it is harder and more
> work to proceed) Usually with the debugger i
If someone writes it, I'll put in into the code. The problem is that
this won't stop them. They'll take the code anyway, use it, then lie
about it...
Jeff
Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> On 3 Sep 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andre Hedrick) writes:
> > >Apology to Jeff,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> M-Systems is in the process of creating a new driver that works as a
> module and contains no GPL code.
A modular driver for rootfs doesn't really strike me as being particularly
useful on an embedded system where you're trying to save every byte
possible, and you d
Someone has to port it to Linux. It runs on MANOS only at present, but
I posted the source code months ago and told folks they could have it.
You can download the MANOS sources and a binary and run it to see how it
works. It's at vger.timpanogas.org.
Jeff
Jeff
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> On
Hello!
In article <8ovlia$nq2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>[...]
>There are even countries (like Germany) where you CAN'T give up your
>copyright and put things into public domain. There is no such thing as
>public domain here. You _always_ keep a certain copyright until
>someone else assumes
On 4 Sep 2000, Stuart Lynne wrote:
> M-Systems distributes something that is perfectly legal for an end user
> to use. Nothing prevents someone from linking anything they want into their
> own copy of a kernel they will use themselves.
Sheesh, I am glad to see that you are also a product of the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hans,
>
>We talked at LWE '99 about this issue.
>As you can see that this is getting to be a bigger mess as I predicted
>more than a year ago. As you explained to me that IGEL had verbal terms
>of agreement that the code re
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> This it will have to wait for 2.5, but everyone needs to get off the issue
> that it is a filter and understand that it is a command completion
> pre-handler. I hope that you fina
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> I was under the understanding a "patch" to something GPL, means
> the "patch" is also GPL. If the patch was not GPL, and it
> patches GPL code, then it itself is in violation of the GPL.
> The fact that the patch is a "derivative work" of the origina
Hans,
We talked at LWE '99 about this issue.
As you can see that this is getting to be a bigger mess as I predicted
more than a year ago. As you explained to me that IGEL had verbal terms
of agreement that the code returned to M-Systems was returned with a GPL
license in it placed by IGEL. M-S
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Al wrote:
>>it is in the kernel. Microsoft (or anyone else for that matter) can't
>>take your code and use it without consent. The GPL is one way of giving
>>consent, with certain strings attached.
>
>But they can take the ideas and methods demonstrated by the code in the
>p
On 4 Sep 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>>> >I am sorry to here of this, but I know what you mean about microsoft.
>>> >My and co-worker's code for doing full taskfile access under linux was
>>> >rejected here but is being used in MicroSoft Whistler 2001. They are
>>> >quick to grab the
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andre Hedrick) writes:
>>
>>
>> >Apology to Jeff,
>>
>> >I am sorry to here of this, but I know what you mean about microsoft.
>> >My and co-worker's code for doing full taskfile access under linux was
>> >rejected here but is bein
Andre,
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 10:30:13PM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote:
[...]
> WOOHOO, you remember Way to go Alan
> You and several others know that I stink at describing a complex point
> regardless that I understand it completely. I am just glad that you hung
> in there lon
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > This it will have to wait for 2.5, but everyone needs to get off the issue
> > that it is a filter and understand that it is a command completion
> > pre-handler. I hope that you finally understand the point and we do not
> > have to fight again, next will
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Linux rejected the code because it does not understand nor does anyone
> > have the desire to learn what it does. Since it is not in the kernel
> > there is no GPL issue. Upon Microsoft's adpotion of the model they will
>
> If its your code there isnt an
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > You and several others know that I stink at describing a complex point
> > regardless that I understand it completely. I am just glad that you hung
> > in there long enough for me to get the point across.
>
> Andre, as far as I can tell, this "complex po
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Andre wrote:
>
> > Linux rejected the code because it does not understand nor does anyone
> > have the desire to learn what it does. Since it is not in the kernel
> > there is no GPL issue. Upon Microsoft's adpotion of the model they will
>
> That
> But they can take the ideas and methods demonstrated by the code in the
> patch. Its not that they are going to take what he wrote and run patch
> against their code. They can take a good idea, sit a skilled programmer in a
> room and adapt the concepts without a bit of a problem.
I call this
> >You can not go after people for patches.
>
> Hi,
>
> >there is no GPL issue. Upon Microsoft's adpotion of the model they will
>
> of course you can. Just don't release a patch but grab the driver
> you're patching against (which is GPL), add your modifications and
> release your driver wit
Sorry for the last mail. Wrong button.
Igmar
-
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/
>That's B.S. The GPL is a Copyright license; it applies whether or not
>it is in the kernel. Microsoft (or anyone else for that matter) can't
>take your code and use it without consent. The GPL is one way of giving
>consent, with certain strings attached.
But they can take the ideas and metho
> Unfortunately we can't do much about M-System's low level code
> because we are bound by the NDA. We have a good relationship to
> M-Systems. Perhaps we can convince them to publish their code as
> well, but I can't promise that.
That side has been dealt with actually.
(drivers/mtp/doc2000.c)
Dear David,
Dear GPL defenders,
As former engineering manager at IGEL I woud like to give you
some additional information to the situation as far as IGEL
is concerned. The German former company IGEL GmbH does not exist
any more and belongs now to Infomatec AG (http://www.infomatec.de).
Technica
> Far smaller companies have _already_ got away with not only violating the
> Linux kernel's GPL, but blatantly encouraging their customers to do so.
Wakey wakey. Unless I am misreading this Andre gave/sold them code he wrote
all of for task file.
> Why should we believe that anyone's actually
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 12:18:10PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > I'm sure that once the FSF is willing to step up, there will be lots
> > of supporters and sponsors to finance this.
>
> Far smaller companies have _already_ got away with not only violating th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I'm sure that once the FSF is willing to step up, there will be lots
> of supporters and sponsors to finance this.
Far smaller companies have _already_ got away with not only violating the
Linux kernel's GPL, but blatantly encouraging their customers to do so.
Why sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. Dow) writes:
>> That's B.S. The GPL is a Copyright license; it applies whether or not
>> it is in the kernel. Microsoft (or anyone else for that matter) can't
>> take your code and use it without consent. The GPL is one way of giving
>> consent, with certain strings attac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andre Hedrick) writes:
>On 3 Sep 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andre Hedrick) writes:
>>
>>
>> >Apology to Jeff,
>>
>> >I am sorry to here of this, but I know what you mean about microsoft.
>> >My and co-worker's code for doing full taskfile a
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
