On 06/30/2007 04:11 AM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Friday 29 June 2007 17:27:34 Rene Herman wrote:
Arguably (no doubt, sigh...) someone could distribute the kernel in
binary form but refuse to provide source for the bits marked as being
in the public domain alongside it -- yes, can of worms wh
On Friday 29 June 2007 17:27:34 Rene Herman wrote:
> On 06/29/2007 11:05 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Indeed if its public domain you may have almost no rights at all
> >> depending what you were given. Once you get the source code you can do
> >> stuff but I
Hi!
> > Now, perhaps redhat should get someone to work on suspend/hibernation
> > support (kernel level)? IIRC you had Nigel at one point, but he was
> > working on something else?
> >
> > Rafael and me am trying to look after hibernation, but I believe noone
> > is really working on suspend :-(.
On 06/29/2007 11:05 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed if its public domain you may have almost no rights at all
depending what you were given. Once you get the source code you can do
stuff but I don't have to give you that. If its public domain I can find
secur
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:27 +0200
> Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > Public domain is GPL compatible.
>>
>> Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
>
> The answer is
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> I don't remember how it was during 2.4 and before, but I
> find it very suspicious that SuSE and RedHat only provide
> 2.6.10 and 2.6.9 for their OS. It looks as if THEY didn't
> trust 2.6.x to be a replacement to 2.6.y
>
> And as I understand it, th
On Thursday, 28 June 2007 23:15, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > >> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
> > > >> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
> > > >> worse...
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't under the impression suspend had real
Hi!
> > >> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
> > >> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
> > >> worse...
> > >
> > > I wasn't under the impression suspend had really ever worked. Such a
> > > messy problem to solve.
> > >
> >
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful reply. _And_ for taking the time to look at
> the code.
>
> I guess my half-assed notion is to have a single file w/"#ifdef-able"
> entries that flag API changes. It at least would give me/us a single
> point of reference, and avoid the rather ugly version checking.
On 06/29/2007 12:48 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:27 +0200
Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Public domain is GPL compatible.
Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
The answer is "NO"
P
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:00:27 +0200
Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Public domain is GPL compatible.
>
> Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
The answer is "NO"
Public domain also means "I don't
On 06/28/2007 06:30 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Public domain is GPL compatible.
Would you happen to have an opinion on the attached? I don't so much need it
or anything but I thought about submitting this once when I was working on
some stuff locally. I didn't since I was expecting arguments that p
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > My (mild) beef is more like what I take to be Al's point: it feels like
> > there is a kind of hostility toward out-of-tree maintainers. Why not
>
> Some of that comes about because a lot of them are out of tree
> maintaining non-fre
Alan Cox wrote:
[snip]
A cleaned-up, consistent, and out-of-tree friendly way of handling API
changes might help us all.
The problem is that its very impractical. If I change a kernel API I fix
up the in tree users and test those I can, that's "accepted practice" -
you make mess doing a job y
> Fair enough:
> http://www.tahomatech.com/downloads/drivers/linux_2.6/pci/x86/compressed_tarfiles/
> or for your browsing pleasure:
> http://www.tahomatech.com/downloads/drivers/linux_2.6/pci/x86/files/
>
> But I really don't see much hope :( Coding style, masses of ioctls,
> build and install t
Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 01:32:23AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL
> > > > module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community.
> > >
> > > The same thing happens with any yet-to-be-merged code.
> > >
>
Helge Hafting wrote:
Bill Waddington wrote:
(And taking my drivers main-line isn't an option. It would be fine
with me, but there is *zero* chance that my funky code would be
welcomed into the tree.)
If the only merge-stopper is code quality, why not
post your driver and get some feedback
Bill Waddington wrote:
(And taking my drivers main-line isn't an option. It would be fine
with me, but there is *zero* chance that my funky code would be
welcomed into the tree.)
If the only merge-stopper is code quality, why not
post your driver and get some feedback? Cleaning up code
will
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 01:32:23AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL
> > > module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community.
> >
> > The same thing happens with any yet-to-be-merged code.
> >
> > > Do you think this is f
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
> >
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
> > > kernel to be a drop-in
Hi Chuck,
On 6/27/07, Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was trying to figure that out for this one:
http://code.ximeta.com/trac-ndas
No mention of ever trying to get this upstream AFAICT... but this is
interesting:
The linux market is limited comparing that of MS Windows.
it is ver
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:08:12PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/27/2007 11:52 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> >> Al Viro wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> And as I understand it, this is (w
On 06/27/2007 05:18 AM, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> If I have to rely on the distribution to help me it spoils
> the whole benefit of open source. I don't trust Novell or
> RedHat or Google more than Microsoft or Apple.
Hey, we're doing the best we can with Fedora and our source
tree is completely op
On 06/27/2007 11:52 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
>> Al Viro wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
stable/development kernels. "We" can trust
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
> > > kernel to be a drop-in
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Thanks Roland,
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 21:03, Roland Kuhn wrote:
On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Whatever "stable" means.
What you mean by "stable" pretty much excludes any
serious development, without which the Linux kernel would
very soon b
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:53:32 UTC, in fa.linux.kernel you wrote:
>Al Viro wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
>> > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
>> > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
>> > kernel to be a drop-
Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
> > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
> > kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable
> > kernel (from the same series),
On Wednesday 27 June 2007, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> If I have to rely on the distribution to help me it spoils
> the whole benefit of open source. I don't trust Novell or
> RedHat or Google more than Microsoft or Apple. You "kernel
> developpers" are the keepers of the flame.
You seem to misunderst
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> I'm a system engineer, and a "stable" system is one where
> the interfaces are stable. Individual components can
> change, and do change, but if you change fundamental
> interfaces it is not the same system. Of course I
> understa
Thanks Roland,
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 21:03, Roland Kuhn wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> > Whatever "stable" means.
>
> What you mean by "stable" pretty much excludes any
> serious development, without which the Linux kernel would
> very soon be obsolete. If you want a s
Hi Zoltan!
On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
If your vendor don't want to support you anymore, try
getting the source.
I was asking for a stable kernel, like 2.4, 2.2, 2.0 were
before. 2.6 is not. It's a great kernel, better than that
of MacOS X, I never said you were doing a bad
Zoltán HUBERT escreveu:
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 13:59, Helge Hafting wrote:
If your vendor don't want to support you anymore, try
getting the source.
I was asking for a stable kernel, like 2.4, 2.2, 2.0 were
before. 2.6 is not. It's a great kernel, better than that
of MacOS X, I never said y
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 13:59, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> > Well, I'm using SuSE Pro 9.3 (excellent choice by the
> > way), coming with kernel 2.6.10-SuSE
> You either stick with SuSE 9.3 forever, or you
> *try* something newer to see if it works,
I did. It (2.6.15) didn't. Betw
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
You might think it's easy for me to simply "use" Linux
and complain while you're doing the hard stuff. As it
happens, the current development/stable model makes our
life as "users" more and more difficult.
In what
On 06/25/2007 07:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Still, I know that, for example, the Fedora 2.6.21-1.3193.fc8 kernel is in
> fact
> 2.6.22-rc3 (see http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7988#c11). Is
> there
> a straightforward way to 'decode' such names? ;-)
>
http://cvs.fedora.redhat
On Monday, 25 June 2007 18:38, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/24/2007 04:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >> On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM,
On 06/24/2007 04:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> I myself have argued that we should
On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >>> I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
> >>> regression f
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Hello gentlemen (and ladies ?)
As a power-user (NOT a hacker) I kindly ask you to please
change the naming scheme and come back to the traditional
model, and release a stable kernel while working on a
develoment branch.
I'm not on the [lkml] so should you answer please
On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >>> I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
> >>> regression f
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:21:51AM +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> On Friday 22 June 2007 00:08, you wrote:
> > > So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
> > > really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is
> > > NEEDED.
> >
> > Its incredibly hard to keep a stable kernel side API
On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>>> I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
>>> regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
>>
On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >
> > I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
> > regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
> > solve this. In general the 2.6.x.y -stable ke
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 11:19 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 23:49 +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> > While some of you dislike
> > closed source drivers, the choices "we users" face are:
> > - closed source drivers with closed source OS
> > - closed source drivers with open source
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 23:49 +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> While some of you dislike
> closed source drivers, the choices "we users" face are:
> - closed source drivers with closed source OS
> - closed source drivers with open source OS
> Please consider that we are living in a REAL world, and not
On Jun 21 2007 16:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> For my part, I think the 2.6. did not go as well as the 2.6.,
>> beginning with x=16.
>
> you misunderstood the even/odd it was never 2.x.y with y odd/even being stable
> / development, it was the x being even/odd to indicate stable / developmen
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 00:57 +0200, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
[...]
> Well, I'm using SuSE Pro 9.3 (excellent choice by the way),
Perhaps in April 2005. And if I read
http://www.pro-linux.de/security/7043 correctly it is unsupported
anyways (sorry, I can't find a date on that page).
ATM there are proba
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is NEEDED.
You are free to create one, or follow Adrian Bunk's 2.6.16.x
series. Nobody's stopping you.
Oh, 2.6.16 does not have the features you need?
You'd be out of
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 19:08 -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 06/21/2007 07:01 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:34:20PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
> >> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broke
Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 06/21/2007 07:01 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:34:20PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>>> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
>>> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps gett
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 22 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 21/06/07, Zoltán HUBERT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
All people who might read this know that traditionally
stable releases are even numbered and development branches
are odd numbered. This changed duri
On Jun 22 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 21/06/07, Zoltán HUBERT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> All people who might read this know that traditionally
>> stable releases are even numbered and development branches
>> are odd numbered. This changed during late develoment of
>> 2.6, acco
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:57:33AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote:
> Well, I'm using SuSE Pro 9.3 (excellent choice by the way),
> coming with kernel 2.6.10-SuSE, on a ATI laptop, and the
> drivers privided wouldn't compile (suspend & freinds). The
> SATA disks were only supported from 2.6.15 (which
On 06/21/2007 07:01 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:34:20PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
>> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
>> worse...
>
> I wasn't under the impress
On 22/06/07, Zoltán HUBERT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > You might think it's easy for me to simply "use" Linux
> > and complain while you're doing the hard stuff. As it
> > happens, the current development/stable model makes our
> > life as "use
On 06/21/2007 11:49 PM, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
Please consider that we are living in a REAL world, and not
Disney-Land.
Well, I don't know about that so much; I've always thought Linus bears a
striking resemblance to Mickey Mouse.
More to the point though -- could you please consider just goi
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:34:20PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
> worse...
I wasn't under the impression suspend had really ever worked. Such a
messy problem
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > You might think it's easy for me to simply "use" Linux
> > and complain while you're doing the hard stuff. As it
> > happens, the current development/stable model makes our
> > life as "users" more and more difficult.
>
> In what way?
Well, I'm
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:52, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> > So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
> > really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is
> > NEEDED.
>
> Not satisfied with 2.6.16.y or one of the "enterprise"
> distro kernels?
so why not call thi
Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
> really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is NEEDED.
Not satisfied with 2.6.16.y or one of the "enterprise" distro kernels?
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== -==- =-==-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe fro
On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
> regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
> solve this. In general the 2.6.x.y -stable kernels seem to be doing
> the job pretty good.
>
Even the g
On 21/06/07, Zoltán HUBERT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
All people who might read this know that traditionally
stable releases are even numbered and development branches
are odd numbered. This changed during late develoment of
2.6, according to my analysis because of the "invention" of
GIT w
On Friday 22 June 2007 00:08, you wrote:
> > So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
> > really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is
> > NEEDED.
>
> Its incredibly hard to keep a stable kernel side API/ABI
> by just backporting fixes. Fortunately you can pay
> vendors to do t
> and we all know this. The un-ending stable ABI argument
> goes into this same direction.
We don't have a stable ABI argument. Linus and others have repeatedly
made this clear; Stable user space ABI is important (sysfs developers
please note 8)). Stable kernel ABI/API not going to happen.
> So
On 06/21/2007 05:49 PM, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
>
> So I feel that a turning-point is coming where a really
> really really (x 15) stable and reliable kernel is NEEDED.
I'll say.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello gentlemen (and ladies ?)
As a power-user (NOT a hacker) I kindly ask you to please
change the naming scheme and come back to the traditional
model, and release a stable kernel while working on a
develoment branch.
I'm not on the [lkml] so should you answer please CC my
e-mail: [EMAIL PR
69 matches
Mail list logo
