At 19:31 2004-08-30, Brian Litzinger wrote:
I do not believe he "had no choice". The guards at Auswitchs made the
same argument at Nuremberg. The tribunal determined they did have a
choice. I doubt we can consider the conditions here more extreme
then there.
I would like to put a great deal of d
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 10:31:57AM -0700, Brian Litzinger wrote:
> I do not believe he "had no choice". The guards at Auswitchs made the
> same argument at Nuremberg. The tribunal determined they did have a
> choice. I doubt we can consider the conditions here more extreme
> then there.
*PLONK
On Sad, 2004-08-28 at 00:13, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Keeping drivers against the wishes of the authors in the tree would
> be very troubling for the future. I can assure you that no maintainer
> will lightly pull a driver in this way.
Then the kernel community is no longer fit to use my code. So yo
Le Samedi 28 Août 2004 02:22, Paul Jakma a écrit :
> Interesting comment on /.:
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119578&cid=10089410
>
> From the LavaRND people. Apparently images produced with the binary
> pcwx portion loaded (full-sized frame) had *less* entropy than the
> smaller im
Interesting comment on /.:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=119578&cid=10089410
From the LavaRND people. Apparently images produced with the binary
pcwx portion loaded (full-sized frame) had *less* entropy than the
smaller images produced without. Hence they speculate that the
function
> Why not let the current driver be and then work on the alternative?
> Why is it so important that it is removed now?
Because Nemo felt that the driver was not in an acceptable shape
the way Greg was willing to accept it.
> Why does it have to be done in a way that create a problem for the comm
On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 00:08, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> > I have boxes where I can't run the latest version
> >of AIX any more since the hardware is no longer supported, but you don't
> >see me ripping IBM's head off for that reason.
BTW Sun did similar things with Solaris somewhere aroung 2.6 IIRC
I have boxes where I can't run the latest version
of AIX any more since the hardware is no longer supported, but you don't
see me ripping IBM's head off for that reason.
Ehhh? No comment.
As I understand it the hook should never have been added in the first
place. Doesn't matter if it has bee
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Ford wrote:
- Since the NDA has long since expired, why not investigate using the whole
of the code?
Because we can't find Nemo.
... sorry about that.
Really, does anybody know him face to face, or any of the previous
developers of this driver? That could help.
-
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> At 18:26 2004-08-27, you wrote:
>
> > First off, here's Nemosoft's big post about the driver, please read that
> > first, and the responses to that thread:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.devel/26310
>
> Reading the thread (which I alread
On Friday 27 August 2004 12:54 pm, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> You did not HAVE TO remove the hook. It had been there for years. You could
> have worked out an alternative way nice and quietly
And it had also been an issue for years, on technical grounds too:
that such number crunching does not
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Ian Romanick wrote:
Very constructive. If you would use this zealotry energy in getting results
from Philips, we might not be here arguing. I get the feeling some seem to
think of the removal of this popular driver as a *contribution* to Linux.
This attitude contributes noth
I'm going to be short and simple.
You're making a huge fuss over this. You're making wild claims about
being forced to throw away $2000 worth of cameras, the next great thing
that Linus will toss out of the kernel, companies being hurt, and 10,000
or more people being put out.
Here are a few p
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> - What is your excuse for forcing us to throw away worth 2000 dollars of
> cameras?
I would think that Greg has invested more time than what could be covered
by that $2000 (i suggest you look up the going rate for experienced kernel
developers), you c
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:54:55 +0200
Kenneth Lavrsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - What is your excuse for forcing us to throw away worth 2000 dollars of
> cameras?
You, just like the rest of the world and even distribution makers if
they choose to do so, can patch the driver back into the kernel
At 18:26 2004-08-27, you wrote:
First off, here's Nemosoft's big post about the driver, please read that
first, and the responses to that thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.devel/26310
Reading the thread (which I already did) shows even more clearly that what
you did is wrong.
The hoo
Wouter Van Hemel wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
Again, that is intentional. People are free to go use BSD if the GPL is
not compatible with their desires. Or Windows, perhaps.
People seem to be whining that Linux is released under the GPL instead
of a BSD licence. Perhaps the us
Wouter Van Hemel pair.com> writes:
> Very constructive. If you would use this zealotry energy in getting
> results from Philips, we might not be here arguing. I get the feeling some
> seem to think of the removal of this popular driver as a *contribution* to
> Linux. This attitude contributes n
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
Again, that is intentional. People are free to go use BSD if the GPL is
not compatible with their desires. Or Windows, perhaps.
People seem to be whining that Linux is released under the GPL instead
of a BSD licence. Perhaps the users concerned should be
Hi,
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:
> Q: But you took away my freedom! Isn't Linux about freedom?
We cannot take something away, you never had to begin with. The GPL gives
you the freedom to modify the source of your driver. If you decide to
relinquish this freedom by using a binary drive
Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.
This was a good one. ;-)
Prakash
---
This SF.Net email is
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 09:26 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Q: But you took away my freedom! Isn't Linux about freedom?
The GPL provides is a very _specific_ kind of freedom. It has its own
restrictions -- in many ways it's less free than if we were to just
release our code to the public domain, or under
22 matches
Mail list logo
