Re: Scsh (Was: Re: My orphaned packages.)
Hi! On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:42:14PM -0700, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote: > Since you are teaming with Martin Gasbichler, and since Martin is a > co-author of Scsh, I'd say that puts you two in as most qualified to > handle the package. (Daniel? Please forward this mail to Martin.) Yup, they are much more qualified than me, I think. > Perhaps the three of you could team? What do you all think? Since they are already two people, I won't think another one is really needed. I am just as happy if somebody else maintains it. As long as bugs get fixed, it's fine with me. bye, Georg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ? [binary only support != good support]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Unfortunately, this new security fix breaks the binary-only gigabit ethernet >driver. That's what stable kernel interfaces are for. Actually I don't recall _any_ change in a stable kernel that broke any kernel-interface. Ok, you have this problem with development-kernels, but a production system shouldn't be built on that anyway. I can't say if there are any license problems with binary-only kernel modules, but the horror-scenario that you propose shouldn't occur with stable kernels, so it is no argument against binary-only modules. BTW: when a company decides to build their productive environment on a open-source system like linux, they should really use their brain and choose hardware that has open-source drivers. Actually the open source is _one_ of the arguments pro such a system, so it sounds really stupid to drop this idea on something as important as a kernel-level driver module! This shouldn't say that I would find binary-only drivers any good - actually I won't use them. bye, Georg -- http://www.westfalen.de/hugo/
