On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:14:48AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > > - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> > > state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> > > 2.4. besides me?)
> >
> >
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, David Weinehall wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:14:48AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
- Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
2.4.whatever besides me?)
Have you
> Why would anyone want to "discuss" paying intel when the license allows you
> to distribute it for nothing? Its clearly designed as an alternative to GPL
> for commercial vendors.
Because if you bother to talk to Intel about your problems Im sure they will
give you a quote to work on it
-
At 03:47 PM 02/17/2001, Alan Cox 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.
>
>I've been technical director of an ISP. I help manage sites that have not
At 03:47 PM 02/17/2001, Alan Cox 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.
I've been technical director of an ISP. I help manage sites that have not
Why would anyone want to "discuss" paying intel when the license allows you
to distribute it for nothing? Its clearly designed as an alternative to GPL
for commercial vendors.
Because if you bother to talk to Intel about your problems Im sure they will
give you a quote to work on it
-
To
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:14:48AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> > state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> > 2.4. besides me?)
>
> Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x > 13 on an m68k mac
> - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> 2.4. besides me?)
Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x > 13 on an m68k mac or 2.4.x on an
m68k mac? doesn't happen. The patches I found for 2.2
- Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
2.4.whatever besides me?)
Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x 13 on an m68k mac or 2.4.x on an
m68k mac? doesn't happen. The patches I found for
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:14:48AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
- Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
2.4.whatever besides me?)
Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x 13 on an m68k mac
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Leif Sawyer wrote:
> > From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > 'good' in this case was meant to mean working properly, well-coded,
> > does-what-it's-suppossed-to-do, eg not broken in one way or
> > another. English should have a better word that 'good...'
> - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> 2.4. besides me?)
Yes it compiles beautifully. Just remember to get it from the ppc tree
because its not merged yet
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> > By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
> > the GPL are 'good' pieces of code.
>
> If you want to rephrase it like that, ok, but then you must not
At 11:00 pm + 21/2/2001, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
>
>> 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
>
>By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
>the GPL are 'good' pieces of code. I can give you several examples of code
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
> On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
> the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> commended for them.
The idea of an optical mouse is nothing new: I've got an optical mouse
sitting to the side of
> From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> 'good' in this case was meant to mean working properly, well-coded,
> does-what-it's-suppossed-to-do, eg not broken in one way or
> another. English should have a better word that 'good...'
>
Functional, perfect, clean, documented,
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> "You keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it
> means."
...To quote Indigo Montoya, speaking to Vuzinni, from "The Princess
Bride" :)
One hell of a story :)
Kelsey Hudson [EMAIL
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
the GPL are 'good' pieces of code. I can give you several examples of code
where this is not the case; several I have written for my own
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
>
> > 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
>
> By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
> the GPL are 'good' pieces of code.
If you want to rephrase
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
the GPL are 'good' pieces of code.
If you want to rephrase it like
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
the GPL are 'good' pieces of code. I can give you several examples of code
where this is not the case; several I have written for my own use,
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
"You keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it
means."
...To quote Indigo Montoya, speaking to Vuzinni, from "The Princess
Bride" :)
One hell of a story :)
Kelsey Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
'good' in this case was meant to mean working properly, well-coded,
does-what-it's-suppossed-to-do, eg not broken in one way or
another. English should have a better word that 'good...'
Functional, perfect, clean, documented, readable,
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
commended for them.
The idea of an optical mouse is nothing new: I've got an optical mouse
sitting to the side of my
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
the GPL are 'good' pieces of code.
If you want to rephrase it like that, ok, but then you must not forget
At 11:00 pm + 21/2/2001, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
the GPL are 'good' pieces of code. I can give you several examples of code
where this
- Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
2.4.whatever besides me?)
Yes it compiles beautifully. Just remember to get it from the ppc tree
because its not merged yet
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Leif Sawyer wrote:
From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
'good' in this case was meant to mean working properly, well-coded,
does-what-it's-suppossed-to-do, eg not broken in one way or
another. English should have a better word that 'good...'
> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> FWIW, -every single- Windows driver source code I've seen
Jeff> has been bloody awful. Asking them to release that code
Jeff> would probably result in embarrassment. Same reasoning why
Jeff> many companies won't
"Jeff" == Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff FWIW, -every single- Windows driver source code I've seen
Jeff has been bloody awful. Asking them to release that code
Jeff would probably result in embarrassment. Same reasoning why
Jeff many companies won't release
Mikulas Patocka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Imagine that there is specification of mark_buffer_dirty. That
> specification says that
> 1. it may not block
> 2. it may block
>
> In case 1. implementators wouldn't change it to block in stable kernel
> relese because they don't
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:58:36 -0500 (EST),
"Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was unable to use the new kernel because the drivers I need for
>`initrd` all had undefined symbols relating to some high memory stuff.
>This, in spite of the fact that I did:
>
>cp .config ..
>make
> One of these things must happen:
>
> a. follow the specification, even if that makes code slow and contorted
> b. change the specification
> c. ignore the specification
> d. get rid of the specification
>
> Option "a" will not be accepted around here. Sorry.
It should be followed in stable
Mikulas Patocka writes:
> Imagine that there is specification of mark_buffer_dirty. That
> specification says that
> 1. it may not block
> 2. it may block
>
> In case 1. implementators wouldn't change it to block in stable kernel
> relese because they don't want to violate the
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> And yes, there _is_ IMHO a difference in telling someone on LKM,
> especially someone without deeper knowledge that is lookin for help:
>
> "You're using a non-open source driver, so we can't help you. Please
> ask your vendor for
> > > > I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
> > > > the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
> > >
> > > In-kernel documentation, agreed.
> > >
> > > _Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below.
> >
> > And
> One of the latest module killers was the opaque type, "THIS_MODULE",
> put at the beginning of struct file_operations. This happened between
> 2.4.0 and 2.4.x. So it's not "imagination".
No it happened before 2.4.0
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
> > > the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
> >
> > In-kernel documentation, agreed.
> >
> > _Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> One of the latest module killers was the opaque type, "THIS_MODULE",
> put at the beginning of struct file_operations. This happened between
> 2.4.0 and 2.4.x. So it's not "imagination".
Richard,
Time to join the rest of us on planet Earth.
> So, is it legal to put changes to a twin licensed driver in the Linux
> kernel tree back into the same driver in the BSD tree?
Just make it plain that patches and contributions to that driver must be
dual licensed. We have several shared drivers with BSD and most people seem
happy that small
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> So, is it legal to put changes to a twin licensed driver in the Linux
> kernel tree back into the same driver in the BSD tree?
IANAL, but AIUI:
if the changes are made the copyright holder then they may do whatever
they want. (release
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, David Howells wrote:
> > I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
> > the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
>
> In-kernel documentation, agreed.
>
> _Linux Device
> > I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
> > the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
>
> In-kernel documentation, agreed.
>
> _Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below.
And do implementators of generic
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, David Howells wrote:
> I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
> the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
In-kernel documentation, agreed.
_Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below.
> and
> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Werner Almesberger wrote:
>> Now what's at stake ? Look at the Windows world. Also there,
>> companies could release their drivers as Open Source. Quick, how
>> many do this ? Almost none. So, given the choice,
I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented and seems
to change almost on a week-by-week basis anyway. I've done my share of chasing
the current kernel revision with drivers that aren't part of
Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> No, I don't. I don't at all. But I prefer a more pragmatic approach to
> the developers and companies who don't.
I actually think it's good if we appear to be a little more "hard-liners"
than we really are. If companies assume that only open source will get
- Original Message -
From: "David Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nicholas Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jeff Garzik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [LONG RANT] Re
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Garzik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nicholas Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 200
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 05:07:02AM -0600, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> > Now what's at stake ? Look at the Windows world. Also there, companies
> > could release their drivers as Open Source. Quick, how many do this ?
> > Almost none. So, given the choice,
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> FWIW, -every single- Windows driver source code I've seen has been
> bloody awful. Asking them to release that code would probably result in
> embarrassment.
Maybe a good analogy is that drivers are to hardware companies like
excrements are to living creatures: in order to
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:53:14AM +0100, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Fine. So you've reinvented AIX, HP-UX, SCO, etc. The question is what
> you expect from Linux. After all, you strongly disagree with the main
> common denominator of Linux developers, that it
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> From: "Jeff Garzik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > FWIW, -every single- Windows driver source code I've seen has been
> > bloody awful. Asking them to release that code would probably result in
> > embarrassment. Same reasoning why many companies won't
ONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation...
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeff Garzik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Werner Almesberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PR
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Garzik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Werner Almesberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:07 AM
Subject: Re:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Now what's at stake ? Look at the Windows world. Also there, companies
> could release their drivers as Open Source. Quick, how many do this ?
> Almost none. So, given the choice, most companies have defaulted to
> closed source. Consistently
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Company wants to make at least some bucks with their
> products and the driver is part of the product. So they may want to
> release a driver which is "closed source".
Usually, the driver doesn't play a large role in product differentiation,
at least not in a
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" wrote:
>
> _BUT_ all these people that want to use Linux ask sometimes for help
> outside their vendor contracts, they get told exactly this: "Go away
> where. You're not using the "one true source from kernel.org". They're
> more locked it with their "open software"
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" wrote:
_BUT_ all these people that want to use Linux ask sometimes for help
outside their vendor contracts, they get told exactly this: "Go away
where. You're not using the "one true source from kernel.org". They're
more locked it with their "open software" than
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Company wants to make at least some bucks with their
products and the driver is part of the product. So they may want to
release a driver which is "closed source".
Usually, the driver doesn't play a large role in product differentiation,
at least not in a
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Werner Almesberger wrote:
Now what's at stake ? Look at the Windows world. Also there, companies
could release their drivers as Open Source. Quick, how many do this ?
Almost none. So, given the choice, most companies have defaulted to
closed source. Consistently
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Garzik" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Werner Almesberger" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles i
and worth them spending their money there.
David Lang
On Mon, 19 Feb
2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:28:56 -0800
From: Nicholas Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
From: "Jeff Garzik" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FWIW, -every single- Windows driver source code I've seen has been
bloody awful. Asking them to release that code would probably result in
embarrassment. Same reasoning why many companies won't release
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:53:14AM +0100, Werner Almesberger wrote:
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Fine. So you've reinvented AIX, HP-UX, SCO, etc. The question is what
you expect from Linux. After all, you strongly disagree with the main
common denominator of Linux developers, that it be
Jeff Garzik wrote:
FWIW, -every single- Windows driver source code I've seen has been
bloody awful. Asking them to release that code would probably result in
embarrassment.
Maybe a good analogy is that drivers are to hardware companies like
excrements are to living creatures: in order to
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 05:07:02AM -0600, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Werner Almesberger wrote:
Now what's at stake ? Look at the Windows world. Also there, companies
could release their drivers as Open Source. Quick, how many do this ?
Almost none. So, given the choice, most
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Garzik" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Nicholas Knight" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation...
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
No, I don't. I don't at all. But I prefer a more pragmatic approach to
the developers and companies who don't.
I actually think it's good if we appear to be a little more "hard-liners"
than we really are. If companies assume that only open source will get
them
I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented and seems
to change almost on a week-by-week basis anyway. I've done my share of chasing
the current kernel revision with drivers that aren't part of
"Jeff" == Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Werner Almesberger wrote:
Now what's at stake ? Look at the Windows world. Also there,
companies could release their drivers as Open Source. Quick, how
many do this ? Almost none. So, given the choice, most companies
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, David Howells wrote:
I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
In-kernel documentation, agreed.
_Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below.
and
I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
In-kernel documentation, agreed.
_Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below.
And do implementators of generic kernel
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, David Howells wrote:
I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
In-kernel documentation, agreed.
_Linux Device Drivers_
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
So, is it legal to put changes to a twin licensed driver in the Linux
kernel tree back into the same driver in the BSD tree?
IANAL, but AIUI:
if the changes are made the copyright holder then they may do whatever
they want. (release the
So, is it legal to put changes to a twin licensed driver in the Linux
kernel tree back into the same driver in the BSD tree?
Just make it plain that patches and contributions to that driver must be
dual licensed. We have several shared drivers with BSD and most people seem
happy that small
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
One of the latest module killers was the opaque type, "THIS_MODULE",
put at the beginning of struct file_operations. This happened between
2.4.0 and 2.4.x. So it's not "imagination".
Richard,
Time to join the rest of us on planet Earth.
That
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
In-kernel documentation, agreed.
_Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and
One of the latest module killers was the opaque type, "THIS_MODULE",
put at the beginning of struct file_operations. This happened between
2.4.0 and 2.4.x. So it's not "imagination".
No it happened before 2.4.0
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
In-kernel documentation, agreed.
_Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below.
And do implementators of
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
And yes, there _is_ IMHO a difference in telling someone on LKM,
especially someone without deeper knowledge that is lookin for help:
"You're using a non-open source driver, so we can't help you. Please
ask your vendor for support."
Mikulas Patocka writes:
Imagine that there is specification of mark_buffer_dirty. That
specification says that
1. it may not block
2. it may block
In case 1. implementators wouldn't change it to block in stable kernel
relese because they don't want to violate the
One of these things must happen:
a. follow the specification, even if that makes code slow and contorted
b. change the specification
c. ignore the specification
d. get rid of the specification
Option "a" will not be accepted around here. Sorry.
It should be followed in stable releases.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:58:36 -0500 (EST),
"Richard B. Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was unable to use the new kernel because the drivers I need for
`initrd` all had undefined symbols relating to some high memory stuff.
This, in spite of the fact that I did:
cp .config ..
make clean
make
Mikulas Patocka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Imagine that there is specification of mark_buffer_dirty. That
specification says that
1. it may not block
2. it may block
In case 1. implementators wouldn't change it to block in stable kernel
relese because they don't want to
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:00:03PM -0600, Gregory S. Youngblood wrote:
>
> > I remember being at a computer show in Minneapolis where a small company
> > was showing off this mouse that worked on a variety of surfaces without a
> > ball. I'm
>> > On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
>> > the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
>> > commended for them.
>> >
>> The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years old with
>> optical mice. It wasn't MS's idea.
>
>
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Steve VanDevender wrote:
> Andre Hedrick writes:
> > Those are not threats they are terms to enforce the License you agreed
> > upon the very act of editing the source code that you are using in the
> > kernel.
>
> Get it right, Andre. The mere act of editing a file
Andre Hedrick writes:
> Those are not threats they are terms to enforce the License you agreed
> upon the very act of editing the source code that you are using in the
> kernel.
Get it right, Andre. The mere act of editing a file that is part of a
GPL-licensed source distribution doesn't
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Bla, bla, bla. The usual Andre Hedrick rant about how superior you're
> to all other, threats and the cited hostility of "open source advocats"
> about everyone not their opinion.
>
> You may be a really talented software developer with
In message <96o9uf$j4h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Henning P.
Schmiedehausen" write
s:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory Maxwell) writes:
>
> >when you said commercial above) drivers for Linux, including the steaming
> >pile of garbage your company ships.
>
> "hostile behaviour of the open source
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:00:03PM -0600, Gregory S. Youngblood wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:15:08PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
> > > > the new optical mice
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Gregory S. Youngblood wrote:
> I remember being at a computer show in Minneapolis where a small company
> was showing off this mouse that worked on a variety of surfaces without a
> ball. I'm trying to remember if the mouse was optical or used yet another
> method of
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:50:17AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
[...]
> If you do not like that rule, LEAVE!
[...]
> if I catch you abusing the privildge of use of my work, I will
> pursue you in terms defined as actionable.
[...]
> And you do not have the knowledge or authority to comment on
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:15:08PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> > >
> > > On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
> > > the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> > > commended for them.
> > >
> >
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >- Innovative new hardware devices are more likely to be based on
> >Linux than any Microsoft OS. For example, the TiVO, the coolest
> >improvement to television since the VCR.
Henning,
When you begin to learn that OpenSource is the way
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:15:08PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
> > the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> > commended for them.
> >
> The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael H. Warfield) writes:
>
> > Excuse me? A 1 billion dolar investment in Linux is not
> >supporting it?
>
> On their own hardware.
Which is really the point and they won't be the only ones. If IBM wants
to attract and keep
Hi.
Thought I'd toss my 0.02sek into the discussion.
> > > 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
Henning P. Schmiedehausen writes:
> The matter with me is: "Vendors AAA ships its hardware product with a
> driver for i386/Linux". The driver may be closed source, but at least
> there _is_ a driver. Russell now says: "This is bad, because I can't use
> the driver for my ARM box. So the vendor
1 - 100 of 311 matches
Mail list logo
