"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The facts are that even a person like me who has been around these
> parts for an awfully long time doesn't even know what the heck to
> spend time on. It isn't something as trivial as deciding if one
> should fix rpctrace to be a bit saner, fixin
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I'm asking the maintainers (Roland, Thomas) what the heck is the
> direction of the Hurd is or should be. If it is the Hurd/Mach, then
> Hurd/L4 should be dropped completely, if it is Hurd/L4, then Hurd/Mach
> should be dropped compltely, or if
El mié, 09-11-2005 a las 02:00 +0100, Marcus Brinkmann escribió:
> Of course, I don't speak for Roland or Thomas. But as far as I know,
> the direction of the Hurd has not changed at all. The Hurd-on-L4
> efforts are an evaluation of a new design. Until such a design
> emerges as a viable altern
> So I'm asking the maintainers (Roland, Thomas) what the heck is
> the direction of the Hurd is or should be. If it is the
> Hurd/Mach, then Hurd/L4 should be dropped completely, if it is
> Hurd/L4, then Hurd/Mach should be dropped compltely, or if it is
> Hurd/something-that-doesn
Marcus, your reply is a kneejerk reaction (I base this on your
inablity to understand the meaning of `seems to be dead'). You
yourself claimed that Hurd/FOO (FOO != Mach) would require a rewrite,
and the only thing left from Hurd/Mach _might_ be libihash. As for
whoms behalf I'm speaking for, who
At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:43:01 +0100,
Alfred M Szmidt wrote:
> Right now Hurd on L4 seems to be dead as a stone
This is not true (or may have some truth in it, depending on how you
define "Hurd on L4").
> And it will require a total redesign, total rewrite of
> everything, and what not.
This is
The lack of direction is annoying. Marcus and I had this long
conversation on IRC about the Hurd, Hurd on Mach, Hurd on L4 and Hurd
on whatever else, the future, the past and everything inbetween.
Right now Hurd on L4 seems to be dead as a stone, more so than Hurd on
Mach. And it will require a
> > On i586-pc-gnu, '/' anywhere on the line starts a comment.
> > This is because the original x86 sysv assembler used '/' to
> > start comments. In mid 1998, I changed this for the linux
> > version of x86 gas, so that '/' could be used in expressions as
> > a divide operator. Ot
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:55:51AM -0500, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:10:35AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On i586-pc-gnu, '/' anywhere on the line starts a comment. This is
> > because the original x86 sysv assembler used '/' to start comments.
> > In mid 1998, I changed t
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:10:35AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On i586-pc-gnu, '/' anywhere on the line starts a comment. This is
> because the original x86 sysv assembler used '/' to start comments.
> In mid 1998, I changed this for the linux version of x86 gas, so that
> '/' could be used in expr
10 matches
Mail list logo
