On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 07:54:08AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 12:58:39AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Try hurt and angry instead.
>
> How about "annoying, childish and socially inept"? We all know your
Well, how about respect for sickness and death ?
> beef with Frans a
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 12:58:39AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Try hurt and angry instead.
How about "annoying, childish and socially inept"? We all know your
beef with Frans and Jonas, and bringing it up again over and over is
only hurting _YOUR_ reputation. You certainly don't want people to
rol
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 12:47:16AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:16:23 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > Please surprise me and don't comment on this one. Just leave it be.
> >
> > You shall be disapointed then, but then, you also chose to be
> > disapointing, chosing not
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:16:23 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> > Please surprise me and don't comment on this one. Just leave it be.
>
> You shall be disapointed then, but then, you also chose to be
> disapointing, chosing not to credit the work i did to solve the
> ide-generic bug, nor show any kind of
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 11:37:02PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:12:50 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:34:25PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > On Sunday 20 August 2006 21:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Supports is a big word, i believe, there where
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:12:50 +0200 Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:34:25PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 August 2006 21:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Supports is a big word, i believe, there where random discussions
> > > about its need some year back or so, and the statu
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:34:25PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 20 August 2006 21:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Supports is a big word, i believe, there where random discussions about
> > its need some year back or so, and the status was not so good. So they
> > probably fixed it for x86 only o
On Sunday 20 August 2006 21:06, Sven Luther wrote:
> Supports is a big word, i believe, there where random discussions about
> its need some year back or so, and the status was not so good. So they
> probably fixed it for x86 only or something, if they did it.
As Sven, as usual, does not have a cl
ote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 01:40:33PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > > for 2.4 sarge there was a speakup flavour on x86_32
> > > > > anyone against adding such to 2.6?
> > > >
> > > > Why only for x86 ?
> >
; > > > for 2.4 sarge there was a speakup flavour on x86_32
> > > > anyone against adding such to 2.6?
> > >
> > > Why only for x86 ?
> >
> > is it tested somewhere else ?
>
> Is it dupposed to work ? What does it do exactly ? pass comm
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:04:37PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 02:24:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 01:40:33PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > for 2.4 sarge there was a speakup flavour on x86_32
> > > anyone
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 02:24:42PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 01:40:33PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > for 2.4 sarge there was a speakup flavour on x86_32
> > anyone against adding such to 2.6?
>
> Why only for x86 ?
is it tested somew
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 01:40:33PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> for 2.4 sarge there was a speakup flavour on x86_32
> anyone against adding such to 2.6?
Why only for x86 ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
for 2.4 sarge there was a speakup flavour on x86_32
anyone against adding such to 2.6?
i'll find a good moment to activate it for NEW,
so first step would be only addition.
a quite recent checkout of their lame cvs can be seen here:
http://dufo.tugraz.at/~prokop/grml-kernel/2.6.17-pa
14 matches
Mail list logo
