Again, if I remember correctly, Peter Zubaj said that ALSA developers care
more about themselves and the development process than about end users. I do
not remember the exact words, but I believe that was the sense.
There was nothing about alsa developpers.
I wrote this:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 05:04, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Easy, isn't it?
Don't you think the same applies to you ?
If I'd be the troll, yes.
Sadly, the trolls are you and Bill, so it is not on me to stop.
---
This SF.net email is
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:58:42 +0100
Peter Zubaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, if I remember correctly, Peter Zubaj said that ALSA developers care
more about themselves and the development process than about end users. I do
not remember the exact words, but I believe that was the sense.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:35:05 +0100
Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 05:04, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Easy, isn't it?
Don't you think the same applies to you ?
If I'd be the troll, yes.
Sadly, the trolls are you and Bill, so it is not on me
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:11, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:35:05 +0100
Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 05:04, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Easy, isn't it?
Don't you think the same applies to you ?
If I'd be the
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
We have already discussed this, here's yet another opinion:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/23/214258 -
This is why we need a kernel api and abi
(Score:2)
by Billly Gates (198444) Alter Relationship on Tuesday January 24, @02:03AM
(#14544582)
On 24-Jan-2006 Sergei Steshenko wrote:
1) we have an IDE drive separated from the CPU by IDE bus. The IDE drive
runs closed-source firmware, which is in terms of the controller inside the
drive still software. There is no fuss about it;
2) we have a WiFi card or an audio card - both
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:54:33 +
James Courtier-Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
We have already discussed this, here's yet another opinion:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/23/214258 -
This is why we need a kernel api and abi
(Score:2)
by
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:57:58 +0100 (CET)
Giuliano Pochini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24-Jan-2006 Sergei Steshenko wrote:
1) we have an IDE drive separated from the CPU by IDE bus. The IDE drive
runs closed-source firmware, which is in terms of the controller inside the
drive still
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:57:58 +0100 (CET)
Giuliano Pochini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24-Jan-2006 Sergei Steshenko wrote:
1) we have an IDE drive separated from the CPU by IDE bus. The IDE drive
runs closed-source firmware, which is in terms of the controller inside the
drive still
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
This has ZERO to do with ALSA, so why did you post it here?
James
Because:
1) the thread is about stable ABI, among other things;
2) because people complain HERE that older version of ALSA with older
kernel version used to work and after the upgrade ALSA stops
Bill Unruh wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:02 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
I was talking about the moral/ideological issue.
My point is that from moral/ideological point of view it doesn't make
sense to insist on OSS only in one case.
It's not a
At Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:03:45 +0200,
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
P.S. On Mandriva 2006.0 'xpdf' is broken. So, being constructively lazy,
I just replaced it with the one from Mandriva 10.2. Of course, I did this
by picking Mandriva 10.2 'xpdf' RPM. That is, I reverted to older BINARY
version.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:27:20 +
James Courtier-Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
This has ZERO to do with ALSA, so why did you post it here?
James
Because:
1) the thread is about stable ABI, among other things;
2) because people complain HERE that
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Comparing the above two I'd say that the difference is IDE bus vs. PCI
bus.
So, why do we have such a discrimination here. Aren't buses and drivers
created
equal ?
No, because the firmware runs on the device, while the driver
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:27:20 +
James Courtier-Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
This has ZERO to do with ALSA, so why did you post it here?
James
Because:
1) the thread is about stable ABI, among other things;
2) because people complain HERE that older
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:27:20 +
James Courtier-Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
This has ZERO to do with ALSA, so why did you post it here?
James
Because:
1) the thread is about stable ABI, among other things;
2) because people complain HERE that older
At Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:47:47 +0200,
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:42:32 +0100
Takashi Iwai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:03:45 +0200,
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
P.S. On Mandriva 2006.0 'xpdf' is broken. So, being constructively lazy,
I just
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:59:14 +0100
Peter Zubaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:27:20 +
James Courtier-Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
This has ZERO to do with ALSA, so why did you post it here?
James
Because:
1) the thread
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:14:15 +0100
Takashi Iwai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:47:47 +0200,
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:42:32 +0100
Takashi Iwai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:03:45 +0200,
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
P.S.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Takashi, as end user I want to know nothing about alsa-lib and kernel.
I want to have a website with driver per card, i.e. I want to perform
only intellectualy primitive lookup operation: read the file names in
repository, find the file which
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Takashi, as end user I want to know nothing about alsa-lib and kernel.
I want to have a website with driver per card, i.e. I want to perform
only intellectualy primitive lookup operation: read the file names in
repository, find the file which matches my card name and
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:39:06 +
James Courtier-Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Takashi, as end user I want to know nothing about alsa-lib and kernel.
I want to have a website with driver per card, i.e. I want to perform
only intellectualy primitive lookup
At Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:16:52 +0200,
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:14:15 +0100
Takashi Iwai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:47:47 +0200,
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:42:32 +0100
Takashi Iwai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 06:47, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:42:32 +0100
Takashi Iwai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:03:45 +0200,
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
P.S. On Mandriva 2006.0 'xpdf' is broken. So, being constructively
lazy, I just replaced it with
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 07:50, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:39:06 +
James Courtier-Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Takashi, as end user I want to know nothing about alsa-lib and
kernel.
I want to have a website with driver per card, i.e. I
Lee Revell wrote:
I have not made any silly statements. Yes, closed source is debugged,
by the people who have the source code. If parts of the kernel are
allowed to be closed source it becomes impossible for anyone except the
people who have the source code to the closed part to debug it.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:39:06 +
James Courtier-Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we have with Linux is better than what you want.
You install the Linux kernel, and you have support for all sound cards
already there. No need to go searching
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Bill Unruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:39:06 +
James Courtier-Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we have with Linux is better than what you want.
You install the Linux
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 12:49, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Bill Unruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:39:06 +
James Courtier-Dutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we have with Linux is
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 09:37 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
It might be, but it in general is not. It is not possible for the
average
user to just recompile. He almost certainly did not install the
development
stuff when he installed Linux. He probably did not install the kernel
source when he
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 09:37 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
It might be, but it in general is not. It is not possible for the
average
user to just recompile. He almost certainly did not install the
development
stuff when he installed Linux. He probably did not
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:13 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
AAgrhaheh. The claim from you was that it is easy for a user to update
the drivers for a new kernel, or install new drivers which had been
developed to a new kernel. Just three lines-- untar, configure and
make. I point out that it is NOT
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:13 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
This discussion also began from the difficulties that sound card
manufacturers have in supporting Linux. They cannot simply include a
binary
driver module which the user can install on his system. This is true
whether they
include source
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 11:54, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
Sergei Steshenko wrote:
We have already discussed this, here's yet another opinion:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/23/214258 -
This is why we need a kernel api and abi
(Score:2)
by Billly Gates (198444)
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 12:15, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
--
Giuliano.
Look, the device a piece of metal, with electric motor(s) and a piece
of plastic (the device PCB) on which the controller, which is also kind
of CPU for the device, is installed.
The CPU is also a CPU, which is
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:13 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
AAgrhaheh. The claim from you was that it is easy for a user to update
the drivers for a new kernel, or install new drivers which had been
developed to a new kernel. Just three lines-- untar, configure
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:51 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:13 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
AAgrhaheh. The claim from you was that it is easy for a user to update
the drivers for a new kernel, or install new drivers which had been
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:13 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
This discussion also began from the difficulties that sound card
manufacturers have in supporting Linux. They cannot simply include a
binary
driver module which the user can install on his system. This
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:51 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:13 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
AAgrhaheh. The claim from you was that it is easy for a user to update
the drivers for a new kernel, or
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Bill Unruh wrote:
I simply do not have the technical knowledge to know if this is the problem
or if there are other technical problems with making modules stable.
Certainly something about the interfaces is stable. Alsa 1.0.x can be
compiled against kernel 2.6.y, or even
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Bill Unruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 09:37 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
It might be, but it in general is not. It is not possible for the
average
user to just recompile. He almost certainly
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Bill Unruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:13 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
AAgrhaheh. The claim from you was that it is easy for a user to update
the drivers for a new kernel, or install new
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:00:06 -0800 (PST)
Bill Unruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:51 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:13 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
AAgrhaheh. The claim
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 01:06 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Again, if I remember correctly, Peter Zubaj said that ALSA developers
care
more about themselves and the development process than about end
users. I do
not remember the exact words, but I believe that was the sense.
Go away, troll.
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:51 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 14:13 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
AAgrhaheh. The claim from you was that it is easy for a user to update
the drivers for a new kernel, or install new drivers which had been
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Theodoros V. Kalamatianos wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Bill Unruh wrote:
I simply do not have the technical knowledge to know if this is the problem
or if there are other technical problems with making modules stable.
Certainly something about the interfaces is stable.
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:23:00 -0500
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 01:06 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Again, if I remember correctly, Peter Zubaj said that ALSA developers
care
more about themselves and the development process than about end
users. I do
not
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Bill Unruh wrote:
While this is true, it would seem that a more stable system than is now in
place could surely also be designed. Ie, a driver compiled against one of
the kernels 2.6.x-y would work on any of the others of that series.
I disagree. linux-2.6.0 was released
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 01:01, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:23:00 -0500
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 01:06 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Again, if I remember correctly, Peter Zubaj said that ALSA developers
care
more about
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 04:48:37 +0100
Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 01:01, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:23:00 -0500
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 01:06 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Again, if I
We have already discussed this, here's yet another opinion:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/23/214258 -
This is why we need a kernel api and abi
(Score:2)
by Billly Gates (198444) Alter Relationship on Tuesday January 24, @02:03AM
(#14544582)
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 02:59 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
We have already discussed this, here's yet another opinion:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/23/214258 -
This is why we need a kernel api and abi
(Score:2)
by Billly Gates (198444) Alter Relationship on Tuesday
The Linux developers DO NOT WANT to make it possible to write closed
source drivers. Many consider it a violation of the GPL.
- GPL allows to run commercial closed source programs under a
GPL'ed OS. That is, it doesn't prohibit this.
SYNOPSYS and Cadence VLSI-related tools are a few examples,
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 03:15 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
The Linux developers DO NOT WANT to make it possible to write closed
source drivers. Many consider it a violation of the GPL.
- GPL allows to run commercial closed source programs under a
GPL'ed OS. That is, it doesn't prohibit
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 03:15 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
SYNOPSYS and Cadence VLSI-related tools are a few examples, though,
as far as SYNOPSYS is concerned, only 2.4.* (and NOT 2.6.*) kernels
are supported because the former are considered to have stable API.
The API exported to userspace
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 02:15, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
The Linux developers DO NOT WANT to make it possible to write closed
source drivers. Many consider it a violation of the GPL.
- GPL allows to run commercial closed source programs under a
GPL'ed OS. That is, it doesn't prohibit
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 02:59 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
We have already discussed this, here's yet another opinion:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/23/214258 -
This is why we need a kernel api and abi
We need a consistant and
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 03:33 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
The programs are userspace.
The argument of 2.4.* - 2.6.* was given by a sysadmin, I do not
know to which extent the sysadmin was competent.
However, he said it was the cause of not upgrading company
RHEL-servers to 2.6.* kernel.
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:34 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
He is also incorrect about wireless, there are plenty of wireless
chipsets with open drivers.
Then why all the closed source firmware? I also recall reading that
the FCC
demanded closed source setting of the frequencies to prevent
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:34 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
Well, I also think that is a mistake. A Write once would also be far
more
stable as far as Linux itself is concerned. If every time the kernel
changes you have to worry whether or not your driver is broken, it
makes
for highly unstable
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 02:15, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
The Linux developers DO NOT WANT to make it possible to write closed
source drivers. Many consider it a violation of the GPL.
- GPL allows to run commercial closed source programs
Probably the sysadmin was right -
http://search.synopsys.com/search?q=linux+kernel+versionspell=1site=wwwoutput=xml_no_dtdclient=wwwaccess=pproxystylesheet=www
shows mostly 2.4.* kernels.
I didn't read every link, but that's what I see at first glance.
Only in 2005 SYNOPSYS announced support
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:34 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
Well, I also think that is a mistake. A Write once would also be far
more
stable as far as Linux itself is concerned. If every time the kernel
changes you have to worry whether or not your driver is
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 02:43, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 02:15, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
The Linux developers DO NOT WANT to make it possible to write closed
source drivers. Many consider it a violation of the GPL.
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:52 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:34 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
Well, I also think that is a mistake. A Write once would also be far
more
stable as far as Linux itself is concerned. If every time the kernel
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 02:52, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:34 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
Well, I also think that is a mistake. A Write once would also be far
more
stable as far as Linux itself is concerned. If every time the kernel
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 03:03 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
btw, where are suddenly all this 'we need a fix binary abi' people are
coming
from?
Until ca 2 month ago they never spoke up, and suddenly in every forum
or mailing lists are popping up people, most of them posting for the
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 03:03 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
Newsflash: the userland abiapi is fix. There is nothing to whine
about.
Yes. No one is trying to tell Nvidia co you must open your libGL
implementation if you want your hardware supported. The way forward
is, as Arjan van de
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 02:43, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 02:15, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
The Linux developers DO NOT WANT to make it possible to write closed
source
Regarding
kernel
developers made it clear that the days of them tolerating proprietary
drivers are numbered.
I am sorry I do not have time at the moment to try XEN (I've already
expressed this idea).
The idea is:
1) in a user machine there will be at least two kernels running
- the main one,
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 03:22, Bill Unruh wrote:
btw, X11 was able to talk to hardware without any kernel-drivers.
But it has to talk via the video card drivers which are kernel drivers I
would assume.
you may read up about Xfree86 3.6 and voodoo cards.
There was no need for kernel
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 04:39 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Regarding
kernel
developers made it clear that the days of them tolerating proprietary
drivers are numbered.
I am sorry I do not have time at the moment to try XEN (I've already
expressed this idea).
The idea is:
1) in
Regarding
firmwares are not drivers. Firmwares are an entity of their own. Please inform
yourself about firmwares and what they do and where they live and compare
them to drivers. And there are many firmware hacks or open firmwares if you
use a search engine of your choice.
.
Specifically,
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 03:22, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 02:43, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 02:15, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
The Linux developers DO
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 04:49 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
Regarding
firmwares are not drivers. Firmwares are an entity of their own. Please
inform
yourself about firmwares and what they do and where they live and compare
them to drivers. And there are many firmware hacks or open
I do not see the point - malfunctioning hardware, regardless of openness
or closeness of driver, can render the system unusable.
So what ?
My point was about interaction of open and closed source software.
I still believe there is a discrimination (PCI - IDE attitude).
By the way, both IDE
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 05:12 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
1) we have an IDE drive separated from the CPU by IDE bus. The IDE drive
runs closed-source firmware, which is in terms of the controller inside
the
drive still software. There is no fuss about it;
2) we have a WiFi
The difference is that the driver code is executed by the
host CPU, while the firmware code is executed by the device
- kinda funny :-).
OK, I propose to run a dual core or dual CPU computer.
One CPU would be for opens source software and the other - for closed
source software.
Now, are the
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 05:28 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
The difference is that the driver code is executed by the
host CPU, while the firmware code is executed by the device
- kinda funny :-).
OK, I propose to run a dual core or dual CPU computer.
One CPU would be for opens
I was talking about the moral/ideological issue.
My point is that from moral/ideological point of view it doesn't make
sense to insist on OSS only in one case.
I do not argue with the definition of linking and its effect on GPL.
I was trying to show that if we at all agree to live with closed
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 05:02, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
I was talking about the moral/ideological issue.
My point is that from moral/ideological point of view it doesn't make
sense to insist on OSS only in one case.
there is no moral issue.
Only a technical one.
drivers are run in kernel
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:02 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
I was trying to show that if we at all agree to live with closed
source
software, i.e. if agree to put extreme ideology aside, then we should
think
about finding a well defined place for closed source SW, so end users
will benefit
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:02 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
I was talking about the moral/ideological issue.
My point is that from moral/ideological point of view it doesn't make
sense to insist on OSS only in one case.
It's not a moral or ideological issue, it's a technical one - there's no
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 03:03 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
btw, where are suddenly all this 'we need a fix binary abi' people are
coming
from?
Until ca 2 month ago they never spoke up, and suddenly in every forum
or mailing lists are popping up
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 07:04, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 03:03 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
btw, where are suddenly all this 'we need a fix binary abi' people are
coming
from?
Until ca 2 month ago they never spoke up, and
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 05:28 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
The difference is that the driver code is executed by the
host CPU, while the firmware code is executed by the device
- kinda funny :-).
OK, I propose to run a dual core or dual CPU computer.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:02 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
I was talking about the moral/ideological issue.
My point is that from moral/ideological point of view it doesn't make
sense to insist on OSS only in one case.
It's not a moral or ideological
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 07:04, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 03:03 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
btw, where are suddenly all this 'we need a fix binary abi' people are
coming
from?
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 22:27 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:02 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
I was talking about the moral/ideological issue.
My point is that from moral/ideological point of view it doesn't make
sense to insist
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 07:37, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 07:04, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 03:03 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
btw, where are suddenly all this
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 07:37, Bill Unruh wrote:
?? And how many such suits have there been?
You are maybe going to take on Microsoft and see if their tcp stack
contains any of your GPL code ( you after all cannot sue for anyone else).
What is versin controll system
btw,
MS used the BSD
92 matches
Mail list logo
