Hi Jörg,
I am going to get beaten for this, but that proposal is actually
brilliant! Well, brilliant if you are not bothered by btrfs that is:-)
But that is what I got backups for.
While I do not care about all the sandboxing that got mixed into this,
the rest got me really thinking about my setu
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Joerg Reisenweber -
reisenwe...@web.de
wrote:
> Besides me for one not liking the idea to *get* *forced* to use btrfs for /,
The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least
common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress.
> my li
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Joerg Reisenweber -
reisenwe...@web.de
wrote:
> From
> *"root fs: any you like, even MSDOS (with some limitations)" *
> to an undiscussed unsolicited
> *"root fs: btrfs mandatory"*
> is *not* the kind of "progress" I want to see happen, ever.
The interesting prope
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Jude Nelson - jud...@gmail.com
wrote:
>> The only way not to be forcing anybody is to stick with the least
>> common denominator for everything. That flat out stops progress.
>
> This is simply not true. A key hallmark of good application design is to
> keep the b
> I think everyone is in agreement that they fulfill the letter of the
> license. The spirit may be lacking especially in regards to access.
> Being an enormous, interdependent hairball simply puts the code out of
> reach for all practical purposes as well as restricting use. Again,
> that's spir
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jaromil - jaro...@dyne.org
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, KatolaZ wrote:
>> This sounds strange and new at the same time, since GCC was indeed
>> designed to be portable and ported to several architectures since from
>> the beginning. Do you have any quote by RMS o
Hi Steve,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Steve Litt -
sl...@troubleshooters.com
wrote:
> Hi Didier,
>
> If your post says what I think it says, you're saying that modern init
> systems should always start services concurrently, not consecutively.
>
> Certainly that's a good thing, and we're wor
Hi Jude, hello Isaac,
I did express myself poorly when I spoke of hardware detection. You
both are fully correct to call me out on that. Yes, hardware detection
happens in the kernel, and indeed some of it is done in parallel
there.
I was thinking about all the user-space tools that scan drives a
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:51 AM, KatolaZ - kato...@freaknet.org
wrote:
> Again. such a binary blob cannot be the Linux kernel with some
> patches, thanks to the fact that Linux is under GPLv2, so any modified
> version of it has to be released with the same license, which implies
> that any user s
