Am Donnerstag 18 Dezember 2008 09:06:15 schrieb olafbuddenha...@gmx.net:
> > (by the way: having a user process which manages a non-restricted
> > buffer should give almost the same advantages as giving memory
> > directly to the server, but without the drawbacks. And it should be
> > painless, sin
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 07:30:53PM +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Samstag 06 Dezember 2008 22:17:12 schrieb olafbuddenha...@gmx.net:
> > So you have offlist discussions, have you? I feel left out ;-)
>
> The discussion stumbled offline since Michal accidently only answered
> to me
Am Samstag 06 Dezember 2008 22:17:12 schrieb olafbuddenha...@gmx.net:
> So you have offlist discussions, have you? I feel left out ;-)
The discussion stumbled offline since Michal accidently only answered to me
and I wasn't sure if he just wanted to avoid spamming the list with DRM
discussions..
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 07:28:23PM +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 03 Dezember 2008 13:57:12 schrieb olafbuddenha...@gmx.net:
> > When a process needs the service of another process which deals with
> > resources it has no access to itself -- say a powerbox -- it doesn't
> >
Hi Olaf,
Firstoff: Thank you!
This is information I hoped for!
Am Mittwoch 03 Dezember 2008 13:57:12 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> When a process needs the service of another process which deals with
> resources it has no access to itself -- say a powerbox -- it doesn't
> launch that process i
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:56:10PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> 2008/11/25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The situation is really quite simple: A system designed to support
> > use cases like DRM is unquestionably bad from a GNU viewpoint -- not
> > only because it helps DRM specifically, but b
