[trying to move this off -hackers] If memory serves me right, Dennis wrote: > At 02:18 PM 03/31/2001, David O'Brien wrote: > >On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 08:49:55PM +0100, Koster, K.J. wrote: > > > Its not a "proprietary tree". I dont have time to clean it up > > > and submit patches. > > > >But you do seem to have time to keep arguing with people??? > >I'm sure you'll have time to bitch again if 4.4 doesn't meet your needs > >because you didn't submit some patch you needed. > > Only because the same morons (like yourself) continue ad infinitum to post > your useless comments publicly. As they say, it takes two to tango. About ten messages ago you asked if someone could just let this thread die. Why don't you take the lead on this and be that person? I'm asking nicely and sincerely. That ought to count for something. Thanks, Bruce.
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Matthew Jacob
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Jonathan Lemon
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Sergey Babkin
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Jonathan Lemon
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Olibert Obdachlos
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Jonathan Lemon
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Olibert Obdachlos
- RE: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Koster, K.J.
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. David O'Brien
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Dennis
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Bruce A. Mah
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Matthew Jacob
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Jordan K Hubbard
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Dennis
- [OT] Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Rick Bradley
- Re: [OT] Re: Intel driver doc's Ta... Dennis
- Re: [OT] Re: Intel driver doc'... Eric Lee Green
- Re: [OT] Re: Intel driver doc'... Dennis
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. Greg Black
- Re: Intel driver doc's Take 2. T. William Wells