On 06/30/2007 04:11 AM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Friday 29 June 2007 17:27:34 Rene Herman wrote:
Arguably (no doubt, sigh...) someone could distribute the kernel in
binary form but refuse to provide source for the bits marked as being
in the public domain alongside it -- yes, can of worms
On 06/30/2007 04:11 AM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Friday 29 June 2007 17:27:34 Rene Herman wrote:
Arguably (no doubt, sigh...) someone could distribute the kernel in
binary form but refuse to provide source for the bits marked as being
in the public domain alongside it -- yes, can of worms
On Friday 29 June 2007 17:27:34 Rene Herman wrote:
> On 06/29/2007 11:05 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Indeed if its public domain you may have almost no rights at all
> >> depending what you were given. Once you get the source code you can do
> >> stuff but I
Hi!
> > Now, perhaps redhat should get someone to work on suspend/hibernation
> > support (kernel level)? IIRC you had Nigel at one point, but he was
> > working on something else?
> >
> > Rafael and me am trying to look after hibernation, but I believe noone
> > is really working on suspend
On 06/29/2007 11:05 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed if its public domain you may have almost no rights at all
depending what you were given. Once you get the source code you can do
stuff but I don't have to give you that. If its public domain I can find
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:27 +0200
> Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > Public domain is GPL compatible.
>>
>> Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
>
> The answer is
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> I don't remember how it was during 2.4 and before, but I
> find it very suspicious that SuSE and RedHat only provide
> 2.6.10 and 2.6.9 for their OS. It looks as if THEY didn't
> trust 2.6.x to be a replacement to 2.6.y
>
> And as I understand it,
On Thursday, 28 June 2007 23:15, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > >> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
> > > >> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
> > > >> worse...
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't under the impression suspend had
Hi!
> > >> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
> > >> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
> > >> worse...
> > >
> > > I wasn't under the impression suspend had really ever worked. Such a
> > > messy problem to solve.
> > >
> >
Hi!
Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
worse...
I wasn't under the impression suspend had really ever worked. Such a
messy problem to solve.
It never worked reliably
On Thursday, 28 June 2007 23:15, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
worse...
I wasn't under the impression suspend had really ever worked. Such a
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
I don't remember how it was during 2.4 and before, but I
find it very suspicious that SuSE and RedHat only provide
2.6.10 and 2.6.9 for their OS. It looks as if THEY didn't
trust 2.6.x to be a replacement to 2.6.y
And as I understand it, this is
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:27 +0200
Rene Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Public domain is GPL compatible.
Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
The answer is NO
Public
On 06/29/2007 11:05 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed if its public domain you may have almost no rights at all
depending what you were given. Once you get the source code you can do
stuff but I don't have to give you that. If its public domain I can find
Hi!
Now, perhaps redhat should get someone to work on suspend/hibernation
support (kernel level)? IIRC you had Nigel at one point, but he was
working on something else?
Rafael and me am trying to look after hibernation, but I believe noone
is really working on suspend :-(.
I've
On Friday 29 June 2007 17:27:34 Rene Herman wrote:
On 06/29/2007 11:05 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed if its public domain you may have almost no rights at all
depending what you were given. Once you get the source code you can do
stuff but I don't have to
> Thanks for the thoughtful reply. _And_ for taking the time to look at
> the code.
>
> I guess my half-assed notion is to have a single file w/"#ifdef-able"
> entries that flag API changes. It at least would give me/us a single
> point of reference, and avoid the rather ugly version checking.
On 06/29/2007 12:48 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:27 +0200
Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Public domain is GPL compatible.
Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
The answer is "NO"
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:27 +0200
Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Public domain is GPL compatible.
>
> Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
The answer is "NO"
Public domain also means "I don't
On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Public domain is GPL compatible.
Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
or anything but I thought about submitting this once when I was working on
some stuff locally. I didn't since I was expecting arguments that
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > My (mild) beef is more like what I take to be Al's point: it feels like
> > there is a kind of hostility toward out-of-tree maintainers. Why not
>
> Some of that comes about because a lot of them are out of tree
> maintaining
Alan Cox wrote:
[snip]
A cleaned-up, consistent, and out-of-tree friendly way of handling API
changes might help us all.
The problem is that its very impractical. If I change a kernel API I fix
up the in tree users and test those I can, that's "accepted practice" -
you make mess doing a job
> Fair enough:
> http://www.tahomatech.com/downloads/drivers/linux_2.6/pci/x86/compressed_tarfiles/
> or for your browsing pleasure:
> http://www.tahomatech.com/downloads/drivers/linux_2.6/pci/x86/files/
>
> But I really don't see much hope :( Coding style, masses of ioctls,
> build and install
Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 01:32:23AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL
> > > > module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community.
> > >
> > > The same thing happens with any yet-to-be-merged code.
> > >
Helge Hafting wrote:
Bill Waddington wrote:
(And taking my drivers main-line isn't an option. It would be fine
with me, but there is *zero* chance that my funky code would be
welcomed into the tree.)
If the only merge-stopper is code quality, why not
post your driver and get some
Bill Waddington wrote:
(And taking my drivers main-line isn't an option. It would be fine
with me, but there is *zero* chance that my funky code would be
welcomed into the tree.)
If the only merge-stopper is code quality, why not
post your driver and get some feedback? Cleaning up code
Bill Waddington wrote:
(And taking my drivers main-line isn't an option. It would be fine
with me, but there is *zero* chance that my funky code would be
welcomed into the tree.)
If the only merge-stopper is code quality, why not
post your driver and get some feedback? Cleaning up code
Helge Hafting wrote:
Bill Waddington wrote:
(And taking my drivers main-line isn't an option. It would be fine
with me, but there is *zero* chance that my funky code would be
welcomed into the tree.)
If the only merge-stopper is code quality, why not
post your driver and get some
Al Viro wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 01:32:23AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL
module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community.
The same thing happens with any yet-to-be-merged code.
Do you think
Fair enough:
http://www.tahomatech.com/downloads/drivers/linux_2.6/pci/x86/compressed_tarfiles/
or for your browsing pleasure:
http://www.tahomatech.com/downloads/drivers/linux_2.6/pci/x86/files/
But I really don't see much hope :( Coding style, masses of ioctls,
build and install
Alan Cox wrote:
[snip]
A cleaned-up, consistent, and out-of-tree friendly way of handling API
changes might help us all.
The problem is that its very impractical. If I change a kernel API I fix
up the in tree users and test those I can, that's accepted practice -
you make mess doing a job
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
My (mild) beef is more like what I take to be Al's point: it feels like
there is a kind of hostility toward out-of-tree maintainers. Why not
Some of that comes about because a lot of them are out of tree
maintaining non-free
On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Public domain is GPL compatible.
Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
or anything but I thought about submitting this once when I was working on
some stuff locally. I didn't since I was expecting arguments that
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:27 +0200
Rene Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Public domain is GPL compatible.
Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
The answer is NO
Public domain also means I don't have to
On 06/29/2007 12:48 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:27 +0200
Rene Herman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Public domain is GPL compatible.
Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
The answer is NO
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. _And_ for taking the time to look at
the code.
I guess my half-assed notion is to have a single file w/#ifdef-able
entries that flag API changes. It at least would give me/us a single
point of reference, and avoid the rather ugly version checking. LDDx
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 01:32:23AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL
> > > module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community.
> >
> > The same thing happens with any yet-to-be-merged code.
> >
> > > Do you think this is
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer
Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
>
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
> > > kernel to be a
Hi Chuck,
On 6/27/07, Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was trying to figure that out for this one:
http://code.ximeta.com/trac-ndas
No mention of ever trying to get this upstream AFAICT... but this is
interesting:
The linux market is limited comparing that of MS Windows.
it is
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:08:12PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/27/2007 11:52 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> >> Al Viro wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> And as I understand it, this is
On 06/27/2007 05:18 AM, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> If I have to rely on the distribution to help me it spoils
> the whole benefit of open source. I don't trust Novell or
> RedHat or Google more than Microsoft or Apple.
Hey, we're doing the best we can with Fedora and our source
tree is completely
On 06/27/2007 11:52 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
>> Al Viro wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
stable/development kernels. "We" can
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
> > > kernel to be a
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Thanks Roland,
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 21:03, Roland Kuhn wrote:
On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Whatever "stable" means.
What you mean by "stable" pretty much excludes any
serious development, without which the Linux kernel would
very soon
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:53:32 UTC, in fa.linux.kernel you wrote:
>Al Viro wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
>> > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
>> > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
>> > kernel to be a
Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
> > kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable
> > kernel (from the same series),
On Wednesday 27 June 2007, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> If I have to rely on the distribution to help me it spoils
> the whole benefit of open source. I don't trust Novell or
> RedHat or Google more than Microsoft or Apple. You "kernel
> developpers" are the keepers of the flame.
You seem to
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> I'm a system engineer, and a "stable" system is one where
> the interfaces are stable. Individual components can
> change, and do change, but if you change fundamental
> interfaces it is not the same system. Of course I
>
Thanks Roland,
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 21:03, Roland Kuhn wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> > Whatever "stable" means.
>
> What you mean by "stable" pretty much excludes any
> serious development, without which the Linux kernel would
> very soon be obsolete. If you want a
Thanks Roland,
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 21:03, Roland Kuhn wrote:
On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Whatever stable means.
What you mean by stable pretty much excludes any
serious development, without which the Linux kernel would
very soon be obsolete. If you want a stable
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
I'm a system engineer, and a stable system is one where
the interfaces are stable. Individual components can
change, and do change, but if you change fundamental
interfaces it is not the same system. Of course I
understand
On Wednesday 27 June 2007, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
If I have to rely on the distribution to help me it spoils
the whole benefit of open source. I don't trust Novell or
RedHat or Google more than Microsoft or Apple. You kernel
developpers are the keepers of the flame.
You seem to misunderstand
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
stable/development kernels. We can trust a newer stable
kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable
kernel (from the same series), while
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:53:32 UTC, in fa.linux.kernel you wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
stable/development kernels. We can trust a newer stable
kernel to be a drop-in
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Thanks Roland,
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 21:03, Roland Kuhn wrote:
On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Whatever stable means.
What you mean by stable pretty much excludes any
serious development, without which the Linux kernel would
very soon be
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
stable/development kernels. We can trust a newer stable
kernel to be a drop-in replacement
On 06/27/2007 11:52 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
stable/development kernels. We can trust a newer stable
On 06/27/2007 05:18 AM, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
If I have to rely on the distribution to help me it spoils
the whole benefit of open source. I don't trust Novell or
RedHat or Google more than Microsoft or Apple.
Hey, we're doing the best we can with Fedora and our source
tree is completely
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:08:12PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/27/2007 11:52 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the
Hi Chuck,
On 6/27/07, Chuck Ebbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was trying to figure that out for this one:
http://code.ximeta.com/trac-ndas
No mention of ever trying to get this upstream AFAICT... but this is
interesting:
The linux market is limited comparing that of MS Windows.
it is very
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
stable/development kernels. We can trust a newer stable
kernel to be a drop-in replacement
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
stable/development kernels. We can trust a newer stable
kernel to be a
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
stable/development kernels. We can trust a newer stable
kernel to
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 01:32:23AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL
module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community.
The same thing happens with any yet-to-be-merged code.
Do you think this is fair?
Yes,
Hi Zoltan!
On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
If your vendor don't want to support you anymore, try
getting the source.
I was asking for a stable kernel, like 2.4, 2.2, 2.0 were
before. 2.6 is not. It's a great kernel, better than that
of MacOS X, I never said you were doing a
Zoltán HUBERT escreveu:
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 13:59, Helge Hafting wrote:
If your vendor don't want to support you anymore, try
getting the source.
I was asking for a stable kernel, like 2.4, 2.2, 2.0 were
before. 2.6 is not. It's a great kernel, better than that
of MacOS X, I never said
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 13:59, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> > Well, I'm using SuSE Pro 9.3 (excellent choice by the
> > way), coming with kernel 2.6.10-SuSE
> You either stick with SuSE 9.3 forever, or you
> *try* something newer to see if it works,
I did. It (2.6.15) didn't.
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
You might think it's easy for me to simply "use" Linux
and complain while you're doing the hard stuff. As it
happens, the current development/stable model makes our
life as "users" more and more difficult.
In what
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
You might think it's easy for me to simply use Linux
and complain while you're doing the hard stuff. As it
happens, the current development/stable model makes our
life as users more and more difficult.
In what
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 13:59, Helge Hafting wrote:
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Well, I'm using SuSE Pro 9.3 (excellent choice by the
way), coming with kernel 2.6.10-SuSE
You either stick with SuSE 9.3 forever, or you
*try* something newer to see if it works,
I did. It (2.6.15) didn't. Between
Zoltán HUBERT escreveu:
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 13:59, Helge Hafting wrote:
If your vendor don't want to support you anymore, try
getting the source.
I was asking for a stable kernel, like 2.4, 2.2, 2.0 were
before. 2.6 is not. It's a great kernel, better than that
of MacOS X, I never said
Hi Zoltan!
On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
If your vendor don't want to support you anymore, try
getting the source.
I was asking for a stable kernel, like 2.4, 2.2, 2.0 were
before. 2.6 is not. It's a great kernel, better than that
of MacOS X, I never said you were doing a
On 06/25/2007 07:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Still, I know that, for example, the Fedora 2.6.21-1.3193.fc8 kernel is in
> fact
> 2.6.22-rc3 (see http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7988#c11). Is
> there
> a straightforward way to 'decode' such names? ;-)
>
On Monday, 25 June 2007 18:38, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/24/2007 04:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >> On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM,
On 06/24/2007 04:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> I myself have argued that we should
On 06/24/2007 04:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
I myself have argued that we should be focusing
On Monday, 25 June 2007 18:38, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/24/2007 04:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl
On 06/25/2007 07:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Still, I know that, for example, the Fedora 2.6.21-1.3193.fc8 kernel is in
fact
2.6.22-rc3 (see http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7988#c11). Is
there
a straightforward way to 'decode' such names? ;-)
On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >>> I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
> >>> regression
On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
regression fixing, but
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Hello gentlemen (and ladies ?)
As a power-user (NOT a hacker) I kindly ask you to please
change the naming scheme and come back to the traditional
model, and release a stable kernel while working on a
develoment branch.
I'm not on the [lkml] so should you answer please
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Hello gentlemen (and ladies ?)
As a power-user (NOT a hacker) I kindly ask you to please
change the naming scheme and come back to the traditional
model, and release a stable kernel while working on a
develoment branch.
I'm not on the [lkml] so should you answer please
On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >>> I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
> >>> regression
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:21:51AM +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> On Friday 22 June 2007 00:08, you wrote:
> > > So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
> > > really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is
> > > NEEDED.
> >
> > Its incredibly hard to keep a stable kernel side
On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>>> I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
>>> regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >
> > I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
> > regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
> > solve this. In general the 2.6.x.y -stable
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 11:19 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 23:49 +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> > While some of you dislike
> > closed source drivers, the choices "we users" face are:
> > - closed source drivers with closed source OS
> > - closed source drivers with open
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 23:49 +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> While some of you dislike
> closed source drivers, the choices "we users" face are:
> - closed source drivers with closed source OS
> - closed source drivers with open source OS
> Please consider that we are living in a REAL world, and not
On Jun 21 2007 16:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> For my part, I think the 2.6. did not go as well as the 2.6.,
>> beginning with x=16.
>
> you misunderstood the even/odd it was never 2.x.y with y odd/even being stable
> / development, it was the x being even/odd to indicate stable /
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 00:57 +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
[...]
> Well, I'm using SuSE Pro 9.3 (excellent choice by the way),
Perhaps in April 2005. And if I read
http://www.pro-linux.de/security/7043 correctly it is unsupported
anyways (sorry, I can't find a date on that page).
ATM there are
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 00:57 +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
[...]
Well, I'm using SuSE Pro 9.3 (excellent choice by the way),
Perhaps in April 2005. And if I read
http://www.pro-linux.de/security/7043 correctly it is unsupported
anyways (sorry, I can't find a date on that page).
ATM there are
On Jun 21 2007 16:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For my part, I think the 2.6.odd did not go as well as the 2.6.even,
beginning with x=16.
you misunderstood the even/odd it was never 2.x.y with y odd/even being stable
/ development, it was the x being even/odd to indicate stable /
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 23:49 +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
While some of you dislike
closed source drivers, the choices we users face are:
- closed source drivers with closed source OS
- closed source drivers with open source OS
Please consider that we are living in a REAL world, and not
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 11:19 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 23:49 +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
While some of you dislike
closed source drivers, the choices we users face are:
- closed source drivers with closed source OS
- closed source drivers with open source OS
You
On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
solve this. In general the 2.6.x.y -stable kernels
On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
solve
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:21:51AM +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:08, you wrote:
So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is
NEEDED.
Its incredibly hard to keep a stable kernel side API/ABI
by
On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
regression fixing, but
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
