On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:11:11AM -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> I'm sure that the majority of Linux users would never acquire
> the 4-board assembly that we use to acquire X-Ray data and
> generate real-time images for the baggage scanners in use
> at the world's major airports. That
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 09:11 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> I'm sure that the majority of Linux users would never acquire
> the 4-board assembly that we use to acquire X-Ray data and
> generate real-time images for the baggage scanners in use
> at the world's major airports. That assembly,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 28.10.2007 20:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:51:12PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>>> Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero
relevance here.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 28.10.2007 20:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:51:12PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero
relevance here.
And there's
On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 09:11 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
I'm sure that the majority of Linux users would never acquire
the 4-board assembly that we use to acquire X-Ray data and
generate real-time images for the baggage scanners in use
at the world's major airports. That assembly,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:11:11AM -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
I'm sure that the majority of Linux users would never acquire
the 4-board assembly that we use to acquire X-Ray data and
generate real-time images for the baggage scanners in use
at the world's major airports. That
Am 28.10.2007 20:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:51:12PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
>>> Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero
>>> relevance here.
>>>
>>> And there's value in making life harder
Am 28.10.2007 20:25 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:51:12PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero
relevance here.
And there's value in making life harder for such modules
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:51:12PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero
> > relevance here.
> >
> > And there's value in making life harder for such modules with
> > questionable
Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero
> relevance here.
>
> And there's value in making life harder for such modules with
> questionable legality. As an example, consider people who experienced
> crashes of "the Linux
Am 28.10.2007 15:37 schrieb Stefan Richter:
> Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter:
>>> You two are hypothesizing.
>> No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether
>> LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult
>> for out of tree
On 28/10/07 14:37, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter:
>>> You two are hypothesizing.
>>
>> No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether
>> LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult
>> for out of tree
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter:
>> You two are hypothesizing.
>
> No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether
> LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult
> for out of tree security module developers.
I still believe you
Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter:
> You two are hypothesizing.
No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether
LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult
for out of tree security module developers.
> - We (most of us) change APIs to improve the
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:15PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> There is a big difference between "not doing anything to help"
>> and "actively doing something to make life difficult for". The
>> former is undoubtedly legitimate. It's the latter we're
>> discussing here.
>
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:15PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
There is a big difference between not doing anything to help
and actively doing something to make life difficult for. The
former is undoubtedly legitimate. It's the latter we're
discussing here.
Justifying
Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter:
You two are hypothesizing.
No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether
LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult
for out of tree security module developers.
- We (most of us) change APIs to improve the
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter:
You two are hypothesizing.
No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether
LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult
for out of tree security module developers.
I still believe you are.
On 28/10/07 14:37, Stefan Richter wrote:
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter:
You two are hypothesizing.
No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether
LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult
for out of tree security
Am 28.10.2007 15:37 schrieb Stefan Richter:
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 28.10.2007 10:25 schrieb Stefan Richter:
You two are hypothesizing.
No, we're not. We're discussing the very real issue of whether
LSM should be amputated in such a way as to make life difficult
for out of tree security
Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero
relevance here.
And there's value in making life harder for such modules with
questionable legality. As an example, consider people who experienced
crashes of the Linux kernel
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 07:51:12PM +0100, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 28.10.2007 02:55 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
Justifying anything with code with not GPL compatible licences has zero
relevance here.
And there's value in making life harder for such modules with
questionable legality. As an
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:07:41PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >> [...] I still think there will always be
> >> a number of external modules that cannot be merged right now or at
> >> all, and deliberately
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:15PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Adrian Bunk schrieb:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:09:14AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> [...] Once
Tilman Schmidt wrote about:
> breaking interfaces they rely on for no other "very good
> reason" than to discourage out-of-tree development?
How often did this happen yet?
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== =-=- ==-==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Adrian Bunk schrieb:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:09:14AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
[...] Once you admit that there is code which, for very good
reasons, won't
Greg KH schrieb:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> [...] I still think there will always be
>> a number of external modules that cannot be merged right now or at
>> all, and deliberately making life difficult for out-of-tree code
>> maintainers in order to coerce
Greg KH schrieb:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
[...] I still think there will always be
a number of external modules that cannot be merged right now or at
all, and deliberately making life difficult for out-of-tree code
maintainers in order to coerce them
Adrian Bunk schrieb:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:09:14AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
[...] Once you admit that there is code which, for very good
reasons, won't ever be accepted
Tilman Schmidt wrote about:
breaking interfaces they rely on for no other very good
reason than to discourage out-of-tree development?
How often did this happen yet?
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== =-=- ==-==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:47:15PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Adrian Bunk schrieb:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:47 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:09:14AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
[...] Once you admit that
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 04:07:41PM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Greg KH schrieb:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:46:39AM +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
[...] I still think there will always be
a number of external modules that cannot be merged right now or at
all, and deliberately making life
32 matches
Mail list logo
