Bah, its too damn stable. Break it and do it again.
>From 2.6.20.3 :
Boot time cut in half.
My PC no longer 'wakes up' angrily. My wife does that, I'm going to
start sleeping with the P4, its more agreeable now.
P4 HT with generic Intel chipset.
What fun is this when nothing breaks?
Thank you
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 22:30 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> asking a device that's running software that you haven't verified to give
> you a checksum of itself isn't going to work becouse the software can just
> lie to you.
>
I don't think there is any way I _could_ make a device if it h
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 16:25 -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Tomas Neme writes:
>
> >> A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be
> >> used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about
> >> a certain result.
> >> -- US Code, Title 17, Section 101
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:27 -0500, Andrew McKay wrote:
> I'm not going to address whether GPLv3 changed the spirit of GPLv2, but
> saying
> that licensing the Linux Kernel under GPLv3 will result in more contributions
> is
> absolute BS.
Is there a system in place that sort of keeps track? Ar
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:21 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Let's take a certain class of medical devices into account: ones that
> are absolutely definitely for medical treatment, but are not life
> threatening if they fail.
>
> Say, a dental treatment device -- if the device produces a crown or
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 00:05 +1000, Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:49:56 Anders Larsen wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:54:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
> >
> > Not exactly laws, but pretty close:
> >
> > Credit-card payment
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 19:14 +0200, Gabor Czigola wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I didn't follow the whole thread from the beginning, but I see that
> there are pros and cons for both versions of GPL.
>
> I wonder why the linux kernel development community couldn't propose
> an own GPL draft (say v2.2) that
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:08 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
> > > modification?
> >
> > You have to ask the copyright holder.
> >
> > Affero did jus
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 14:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> you argue that it is evil for tivo to produce a pice of hardware that they
> can modify and the user can't
>
> but you then argue that it's a good thing for the FSF to produce a license
> that they can modify and others can't
They ca
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 23:19 +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
>
> Wow!
>
> Under what circumstances would it be possible to receive permission for
> modification?
>
>
> Thanks for being GPL!
>
> --
> Al
>
If the GPL2 were itself modifiable, there would be so many GPL licenses
that the term "Relased u
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 05:42 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Which shows you don't understand the notion of "spirit of license" (as
> opposed to intent of licensing, which I AFAIK invented today to try to
> dispell this confusion), and that the fact that the letter of the
> license doesn't have bea
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 14:43 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >
> > You mean renting the computer with the software in it is not
> > distribution of the software?
>
> It is. But you don't have the same rights to a rented machine as you do to
> one
> you have purchased. In fact, in renting a machi
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 00:44 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> >> users the content they want to w
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
> that legitimate enough of a reason to restrict the hardware?
Can I submit that they could just rent the use of their machines? I
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 19:52 -0500, Scott Preece wrote:
>
> Yes, but in highlighting the possibility of evil intentions you
> distort the fact that usually there are no such evil intentions...
>
I don't think you can use "usually" and "fact" together like that. Why
is it so bad to account for th
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 21:23 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
> >
> > If the signature is one that serves to indicate origin, to detect
> > tampering, or the other things you mentioned, the program's binary is
> > useful when separated from the signature.
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 11:49 +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>
> So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ?
>
Please realize that one doesn't need to be dead to become
uncommunicative incapacitated or vanish. The only need to be somewhere
other than where they were withou
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 19:36 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And
> if they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of
> copyright, so I assume the copyright lapses.
>
> And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some legal pr
Good day/evening to all.
I was wondering if a meta version of the decision making process that
would be employed to determine if a new contribution does or does not go
into the main stream Linux kernel.
The following abstract demonstrates my question if it does not make
sense:
"There are many fi
19 matches
Mail list logo
