From: info at smallinnovations dot nl
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: [DNG] (forw) Re: [skeptic] MINIX: ?Intel's hidden in-chip
operating system
On 09-11-17 02:24, Rick Moen wrote:
> Vaughan-Nichols's article is at
> http://www.zdnet.co
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 00:39:34 +0100
Svante Signell wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 13:33 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> > > We use LaTEX in technical documents,
> >
> > LaTeX is wonderful *for what it does*, which is make beautifully
> > typeset documents whose linefeeds are determined at c
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 19:45:02 +0100
Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
>> The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the
>> genuine duty of distro maintainers to take care of exactly such stuff.
>> The argument that some
Am Montag, 13. November 2017 schrieb dan pridgeon:
>
> From: info at smallinnovations dot nl
> To: dng@lists.dyne.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 5:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNG] (forw) Re: [skeptic] MINIX: ?Intel's hidden in-chip
> operating system
>
> On 09-11-17 02:24, Rick Mo
On Sat 11 November 2017 09:28:23 Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Does it really make the card more "free" if the binary blob is built-in
> > instead of being loaded at runtime?
>
> Somehow, RMS believes so.
No, actually RMS/FSF doesn't care about "more free" or "more secure" for that
particular topic o
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 22:03:32 -0500
"taii...@gmx.com" wrote:
> In case you don't notice my reply (but please keep replies on the ML
> so everyone sees :D)
OK, here it is...
>
> On 11/09/2017 12:32 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
[snip]
> > After Rick's posted Minix on Intel article, I'm going to stick
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> On Sun 12 November 2017 19:45:02 Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> > > The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the genuine
> > > duty of distro mai
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:35:09PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 00:39:34 +0100
> Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 13:33 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> > >
> > > > We use LaTEX in technical documents,
> > >
> > > LaTeX is wonderful *for what it does*, which i
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 19:45:02 +0100
Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> > The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the
> > genuine duty of distro maintainers to take care of exactly such
> > stuff. The argument that some
On 11/12/2017 09:06 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 22:03:32 -0500
"taii...@gmx.com" wrote:
In case you don't notice my reply (but please keep replies on the ML
so everyone sees :D)
OK, here it is...
On 11/09/2017 12:32 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
[snip]
After Rick's posted Minix on
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:35:09PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 00:39:34 +0100
> Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 13:33 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> > >
> > > > We use LaTEX in technical documents,
> > >
> > > LaTeX is wonderful *for what it does*, which i
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:14:43AM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 19:45:02 +0100
> Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> >> The "too much work" argument is a very embarrassing one - it's the
> >> genuine duty of di
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 04:09:21PM -0600, Patrick Meade wrote:
> On 11/12/2017 12:45 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > At least microcode is mandatory on any modern x86 CPUs, or you risk severe
> > data loss issues that differ by CPU sub-model. You may think that just
> > because without microcode your
On Mon 13 November 2017 00:18:15 Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> > On Sun 12 November 2017 19:45:02 Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> > > > The "too much work" argument is a ver
On Sun 12 November 2017 21:54:36 Steve Litt wrote:
> One more thing: What did people do before maybe 2010,
> when /sbin, /bin, /usr/sbin, and /user/bin were four separate
> directories? Was life that hard back then? Were develpers smarter?
I'd bet all and my butt on the latter ;-) It's just too ob
hello Didier Kryn: thanks for bringing this to my [and everyones]
attention. My use of mdev "just seems to work", perhaps because I just use
my computers for boring "desktop duties".
I remember Devuan being very agressive when I tried to uninstall udev*
[dragging many other important packages wi
On 13/11/17 13:09, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
On Sun 12 November 2017 21:54:36 Steve Litt wrote:
One more thing: What did people do before maybe 2010,
when /sbin, /bin, /usr/sbin, and /user/bin were four separate
directories? Was life that hard back then? Were develpers smarter?
I'd bet all and m
Le 13/11/2017 à 13:56, jacksprat a écrit :
hello Didier Kryn: thanks for bringing this to my [and everyones]
attention. My use of mdev "just seems to work", perhaps because I
just use my computers for boring "desktop duties".
I remember Devuan being very agressive when I tried to uninstall u
Didier Kryn: sorry, I am new to MLs, and thought everything arriving from
lists.dyne.org was in the same space.
jacksprat
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 05:25:31 -0500
"taii...@gmx.com" wrote:
> Of course - which is why I mentioned the x86-64 D8 and D16 - which
> while slower than POWER 9 are still quite fast with a $40 16 core
> CPU. You could build a complete setup for around $500 - at least I
> did.
Noww you're speaki
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 12:42:50 +0100
Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 01:14:43AM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 19:45:02 +0100
>> Adam Borowski wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 12:14:33PM +0100, Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
The "too much work" a
On Mon 13 November 2017 15:46:30 John Hughes wrote:
> systemd didn't exist in 1991 when USL decided that for SVR4.2 /bin, /lib
> and /sbin should just be symlinks to /usr.
And when did USL (whoever that is) decide that SVR4.2 doesn't care about being
able to run on any ARM SoC? And how's that re
22 matches
Mail list logo
