Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:25:53 +0200:
* Jeroen Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20020409 20:45]:
You don't have to tell me how glibc works, I develop it.
Yeah, and Daniel Stone is a Linux kernel developer.
Heheheheh
But watch out, Jeroen == Hurd developer.. (Ohyes, Hurd
Jeroen [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Tue, 9 Apr 2002 19:29:14 +0200:
What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems he's having
is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2 free
alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those problems?
The problem with those
* Jeroen Dekkers
| Software always used to be free. That changed, but RMS didn't
| change. I don't what software he used to write parts of GNU, but it
| could have been free, there was enough free software at time. Oh, and
| 1) the Hurd isn't a kernel 2) RMS has never written anything of
| it
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:29:56AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:40:41PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
s/refused/discouraged/ and I would agree. Isn't the goal of Debian
providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free
software anymore? IMHO the
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:49:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Isn't the goal of Debian
providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free
software anymore?
No, no, nonono, no, no, no.
4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:49:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Isn't the goal of Debian
providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free
software anymore?
No, no, nonono, no, no, no.
4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
some solutions for it (namely using a good, free MUA). You just let
the person helpless, I try to point him to the fix. However if you try
to help somebody you should not be a debian developers because you
said that non-free software is the problem
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 01:02:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves
me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have
some time left for leisure or for working on stuff like free software.
You restrict
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:13:57PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves
me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have
some time left for leisure or for working on stuff like free software.
You
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:43:22AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:13:57PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves
me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have
some time
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:13:57PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 01:02:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves
me some time. After all I want to get my job done and I want to have
some time
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 05:33:16PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Oh, and 1) the Hurd isn't a kernel
Wonderful news! Does this mean that we can expect the
'whine-the-linux-kernel-packages-should-all-have-linux-in-the-name-/whine'
thread to not repeat itself?
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:43:22AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
If there are only proprietary programs that do a specific job, and it
is desired to have a free program for this job, then we are forced to
reinvent the wheel by the proprietary programs licenses.
Forced to by whom? By Jeroen,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 05:33:16PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
That's fine with me. At least I'll have a lot more leisure when using
an available product instead of re-inventing the wheel. Even RMS used
commercial software when the GNU software for it was not yet written.
With your logic
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:46:12AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 05:33:16PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Oh, and 1) the Hurd isn't a kernel
Wonderful news! Does this mean that we can expect the
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:09:58AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:43:22AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 03:13:57PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
In such cases I sometimes decide to run the non-free tool if it saves
me some time.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 06:33:34PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:43:22AM -0400, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
If there are only proprietary programs that do a specific job, and it
is desired to have a free program for this job, then we are forced to
reinvent the
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:40:41PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
s/refused/discouraged/ and I would agree. Isn't the goal of Debian
providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free
software anymore? IMHO the we support non-free software clause was
I think this is one of the goals
Hi Donald,
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:54:54PM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
Well, I didn't expect to inspire such a vibrant thread! A couple
of responses (not in anger, just adding some perspective).
1) free vs. non-free alternatives
I use VMWare 2.0. If you think that bochs and
* Jeroen Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20020409 20:45]:
You don't have to tell me how glibc works, I develop it.
Yeah, and Daniel Stone is a Linux kernel developer.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Od: Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
X-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 10
11:26:22 2002
Temat: Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Data: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:25:53 +0200
* Jeroen Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20020409 20:45]:
You don't have
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:49:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Isn't the goal of Debian
providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free
software anymore?
No, no, nonono, no, no, no.
Yes, of course. That's one of Debian's main
Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
Od: Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
X-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 10
11:26:22 2002
Temat: Re: sid: libc6-2.2.5-4 kills vmware workstation 3.0
Data: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:25:53 +0200
* Jeroen Dekkers [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:38:13PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
But does that mean they can posts question about problems with that
non-free software which are not related to Debian at all (the only
relation is that the user runs
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:54:54PM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
Well, I didn't expect to inspire such a vibrant thread! A couple
of responses (not in anger, just adding some perspective).
1) free vs. non-free alternatives
I use VMWare 2.0. If you think that bochs and Plex86 aren't
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW)
*sigh*
Do you
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:37:31AM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
with your vmware
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:49:49AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:37:31AM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences. Debian
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:37:31AM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
with your vmware
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:37:31AM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences. Debian
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Do you always need to repeat this?
Yes.
..
And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and
bandwith. Those posts also waste my time.
Filtering them out would save you more time, bandwidth and processing
power than replying in the
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Do you really think it's a waste of
bandwidth and processing power to let the vmware users discuss a
problem caused by a change in _Debian_?
First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in
glibc. Second vmware
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:10:20AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and
bandwith. Those posts also waste my time.
Filtering them out would save you more time, bandwidth and processing
power than
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in
glibc. Second vmware isn't Debian. Third Debian goes about free
software, vmware isn't. This is clearly the wrong list, either go to
some vmware list or go to the
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
That isn't my biggest concern.
Apparently. This implies, of course, that the additional bandwidth due
to those messages isn't the real problem.
I don't think that advocating free software is a waste of those
things.
Advocating free software isn't.
Jeroen [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:30:54 +0200:
And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and
bandwith. Those posts also waste my time.
Writing these posts probably takes (wastes) even more time.
I got GNU/Linux to boot on plex86.
It'll reduce my XP1700+'s power
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:31:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Do you really think it's a waste of
bandwidth and processing power to let the vmware users discuss a
problem caused by a change in _Debian_?
First of all this
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:46:33AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
That isn't my biggest concern.
Apparently. This implies, of course, that the additional bandwidth due
to those messages isn't the real problem.
I never claimed that. I was asked if I
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:34:35PM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in
glibc. Second vmware isn't Debian. Third Debian goes about free
software, vmware isn't. This is
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I agreed with the social contract, but I think it should be
changed. Some parts are just wrong, other things are confusing.
That certainly looks like a contradiction to me. How do you agree with
it if you feel it's wrong?
To talk about the social
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:29:14PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:31:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
First of all this isn't a Debian-specific change but a change in
glibc. Second vmware isn't
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW)
As this might be a
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:21:49PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:29:14PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:31:35AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
First of all this isn't a
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
with your vmware
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:13:25PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I agreed with the social contract, but I think it should be
changed. Some parts are just wrong, other things are confusing.
That certainly looks like a contradiction to me. How do
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:53:59PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
with your vmware
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:21:49PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:29:14PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Vmware isn't even in Debian. This is truely a problem of vmware
itself. IMHO this isn't something
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
This problem is very common for non-free software. If you want to
avoid such problems, you could try one of the free alternatives in
Debian, plex86 and bochs. Those might have other problems (like being
slower) but you probably
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:58:20PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Of course you can say that in the social contract says Thus, although
non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, but if
I interpret that correctly, it just means the non-free software
packages provided by
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:20:38PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
This problem is very common for non-free software. If you want to
avoid such problems, you could try one of the free alternatives in
Debian, plex86 and bochs. Those
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:48:59PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Hmm, I knew somebody would find something to complain about in my
second try to word my opinion. I'm not even going to try to do it a
third time.
I'm sorry. That just doesn't wash. I read: I knew somebody would ...
complain as
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:11:59PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
This problem is very common for non-free software.
... which really doesn't seem all that relevant apart from sounding
good; hell, the change in nice()'s return value appears to be a problem
for start-stop-daemon in dpkg, see
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:11:59PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 01:21:49PM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:29:14PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Vmware isn't even in Debian. This is
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
By knowing the date it was written and what they actually meant
instead of what they actually have written down. (For example, they
meant non-free but they wrote commercial). And I'm not the only one, I
know more Debian developers who don't really
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:16:07PM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:25:47PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences. Debian
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Blow off the non-free software user, no. If you have nothing to offer
by way of help with vmware itself, then your silence will be enough to
indicate that.
And the user will never find out why he's having that problem. I don't
think that not
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:30:12PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
By knowing the date it was written and what they actually meant
instead of what they actually have written down. (For example, they
meant non-free but they wrote commercial). And
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:40:41PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:16:07PM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote:
I just say the consequences of that choice, that is you're having
problems with an old version and you don't have the freedom to fix
that.
From reading this
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 03:45:26PM +, Wilmer van der Gaast [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
Jeroen [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:30:54 +0200:
And yes, I think vmware is a waste of processing power and
bandwith. Those posts also waste my time.
Writing these posts probably
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
This problem is very common for non-free software.
... which really doesn't seem all that relevant apart from sounding
good; hell, the change in nice()'s return value appears to be a problem
for start-stop-daemon in dpkg, see #141500, and a minor
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:27:04PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
This problem is very common for non-free software.
... which really doesn't seem all that relevant apart from sounding
good; hell, the change in nice()'s return value appears to be a
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
But does that mean they can posts question about problems with that
non-free software which are not related to Debian at all (the only
relation is that the user runs Debian) to debian-devel?
No. However, this mess all started because the *wording* in
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
...to bring in other fixes that aren't so easy to seperate from smaller
ones.
Lose the tone, it wont get you what you want. Nice is being fixed. I've
said this in several of the bug reports. This whole thread just needs to
die.
You haven't said it
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:52:46PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Blow off the non-free software user, no. If you have nothing to offer
by way of help with vmware itself, then your silence will be enough to
indicate that.
And the user will
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:43:32PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Ben Collins wrote:
...to bring in other fixes that aren't so easy to seperate from smaller
ones.
Lose the tone, it wont get you what you want. Nice is being fixed. I've
said this in several of the bug
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Isn't the goal of Debian
providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free
software anymore?
No, no, nonono, no, no, no.
I'm done.
Stephen
pgpMjAfoXH8OQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
CAPSLOCK
THE PROBLEM HE IS HAVING IS THAT VMWARE DOESN'T PROVIDE A PATCH FOR
THE OLD VERSION HE IS USING. WITH FREE SOFTWARE, HE COULD JUST FIX THE
PROBLEM ITSELF, WITH NON-FREE SOFTWARE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. THE CAUSE
OF HIS PROBLEM IS THUS THAT HE
Well, I didn't expect to inspire such a vibrant thread! A couple
of responses (not in anger, just adding some perspective).
1) free vs. non-free alternatives
I use VMWare 2.0. If you think that bochs and Plex86 aren't
viable alternatives yet, you can imagine the state of the world
(2 years ago
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:42:51PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
I'm getting sick of people who can't read. Let's say the same thing
for the next time.
Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is with your
communication skills, not with the horde of people who find your
messages
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Phillips) writes:
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
As SUSv2 mandates that new nice return value is correct,
please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or @GLIBC_2.2.6 as it is in CVS
only) for new nice() interface, so old
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
Hi Donald,
Let me see if I understand this. I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and
this morning I discovered that it dies with:
VMware Workstation PANIC:
AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081
This is on a relatively current
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Phillips) writes:
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
As SUSv2 mandates that new nice return value is correct,
please use [EMAIL PROTECTED] (or
May you should consider VMware's current beta of 3.1?
Good luck
Harri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donald J Bindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
VMware Workstation PANIC:
AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081
This is on a relatively current Woody system, and VMWare was
running fine last week. Is this the same issue, and does that
leave me in the sorry category?
Yes, you're screwed. If
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:14:17PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
May you should consider VMware's current beta of 3.1?
That might have been an option if my VMWare sessions weren't
suspended. To upgrade, they first have to be restarted with
version 2.0 and shut down properly. Then they can be
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 12:01:00AM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
Let's replace movl %eax,%ebx with xorl %ebx,%ebx ;-) Apply
ftp://platan.vc.cvut.cz/pub/vmware/vmware-ws-1455-update12.tar.gz.
It fixes issue for VMware 3.0 and for
Bao C. Ha [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:03:11AM -0500, Donald J Bindner wrote:
Hi Donald,
Let me see if I understand this. I am running VMWare 2.0.4 and
this morning I discovered that it dies with:
VMware Workstation PANIC:
AIO: NOT_IMPLEMENTED F(566):1081
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW)
Jeroen Dekkers
79 matches
Mail list logo
