On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:14:48AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > > - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> > > state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> > > 2.4. besides me?)
> >
> > Hav
> Why would anyone want to "discuss" paying intel when the license allows you
> to distribute it for nothing? Its clearly designed as an alternative to GPL
> for commercial vendors.
Because if you bother to talk to Intel about your problems Im sure they will
give you a quote to work on it
-
To
At 03:47 PM 02/17/2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that
> > they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that
> > it is problematic.
>
>I've been technical director of an ISP. I help manage sites that have not
>ins
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:14:48AM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> > state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> > 2.4. besides me?)
>
> Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x > 13 on an m68k mac o
> - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> 2.4. besides me?)
Have you tried comiling 2.2.x where x > 13 on an m68k mac or 2.4.x on an
m68k mac? doesn't happen. The patches I found for 2.2 di
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Leif Sawyer wrote:
> > From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > 'good' in this case was meant to mean working properly, well-coded,
> > does-what-it's-suppossed-to-do, eg not broken in one way or
> > another. English should have a better word that 'good...'
> - Some architectures' ports of the Linux kernel, at least in their current
> state (has anyone actually tried to *compile* the PPC kernel since
> 2.4. besides me?)
Yes it compiles beautifully. Just remember to get it from the ppc tree
because its not merged yet
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> > By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
> > the GPL are 'good' pieces of code.
>
> If you want to rephrase it like that, ok, but then you must not
At 11:00 pm + 21/2/2001, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
>
>> 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
>
>By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
>the GPL are 'good' pieces of code. I can give you several examples of code
>where
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
> On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
> the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> commended for them.
The idea of an optical mouse is nothing new: I've got an optical mouse
sitting to the side of m
> From: Dr. Kelsey Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> 'good' in this case was meant to mean working properly, well-coded,
> does-what-it's-suppossed-to-do, eg not broken in one way or
> another. English should have a better word that 'good...'
>
Functional, perfect, clean, documented, reada
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> "You keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it
> means."
...To quote Indigo Montoya, speaking to Vuzinni, from "The Princess
Bride" :)
One hell of a story :)
Kelsey Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
> 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
the GPL are 'good' pieces of code. I can give you several examples of code
where this is not the case; several I have written for my own use,
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 03:00:26PM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Augustin Vidovic wrote:
>
> > 1- GPL code is the opposite of crap
>
> By saying this, you are implying that all pieces of code released under
> the GPL are 'good' pieces of code.
If you want to rephrase it
> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> FWIW, -every single- Windows driver source code I've seen
Jeff> has been bloody awful. Asking them to release that code
Jeff> would probably result in embarrassment. Same reasoning why
Jeff> many companies won't relea
Mikulas Patocka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Imagine that there is specification of mark_buffer_dirty. That
> specification says that
> 1. it may not block
> 2. it may block
>
> In case 1. implementators wouldn't change it to block in stable kernel
> relese because they don't
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:58:36 -0500 (EST),
"Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was unable to use the new kernel because the drivers I need for
>`initrd` all had undefined symbols relating to some high memory stuff.
>This, in spite of the fact that I did:
>
>cp .config ..
>make clean
> One of these things must happen:
>
> a. follow the specification, even if that makes code slow and contorted
> b. change the specification
> c. ignore the specification
> d. get rid of the specification
>
> Option "a" will not be accepted around here. Sorry.
It should be followed in stable re
Mikulas Patocka writes:
> Imagine that there is specification of mark_buffer_dirty. That
> specification says that
> 1. it may not block
> 2. it may block
>
> In case 1. implementators wouldn't change it to block in stable kernel
> relese because they don't want to violate the
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> And yes, there _is_ IMHO a difference in telling someone on LKM,
> especially someone without deeper knowledge that is lookin for help:
>
> "You're using a non-open source driver, so we can't help you. Please
> ask your vendor for support.
> > > > I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
> > > > the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
> > >
> > > In-kernel documentation, agreed.
> > >
> > > _Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below.
> >
> > And d
> One of the latest module killers was the opaque type, "THIS_MODULE",
> put at the beginning of struct file_operations. This happened between
> 2.4.0 and 2.4.x. So it's not "imagination".
No it happened before 2.4.0
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
> > > the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
> >
> > In-kernel documentation, agreed.
> >
> > _Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> One of the latest module killers was the opaque type, "THIS_MODULE",
> put at the beginning of struct file_operations. This happened between
> 2.4.0 and 2.4.x. So it's not "imagination".
Richard,
Time to join the rest of us on planet Earth.
That
> So, is it legal to put changes to a twin licensed driver in the Linux
> kernel tree back into the same driver in the BSD tree?
Just make it plain that patches and contributions to that driver must be
dual licensed. We have several shared drivers with BSD and most people seem
happy that small fi
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> So, is it legal to put changes to a twin licensed driver in the Linux
> kernel tree back into the same driver in the BSD tree?
IANAL, but AIUI:
if the changes are made the copyright holder then they may do whatever
they want. (release the
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, David Howells wrote:
> > I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
> > the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
>
> In-kernel documentation, agreed.
>
> _Linux Device D
> > I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
> > the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
>
> In-kernel documentation, agreed.
>
> _Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below.
And do implementators of generic kern
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, David Howells wrote:
> I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
> the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented
In-kernel documentation, agreed.
_Linux Device Drivers_ is a good reference for 2.2 and below.
> and s
> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Werner Almesberger wrote:
>> Now what's at stake ? Look at the Windows world. Also there,
>> companies could release their drivers as Open Source. Quick, how
>> many do this ? Almost none. So, given the choice, mo
I suspect part of the problem with commercial driver support on Linux is that
the Linux driver API (such as it is) is relatively poorly documented and seems
to change almost on a week-by-week basis anyway. I've done my share of chasing
the current kernel revision with drivers that aren't part of
Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> No, I don't. I don't at all. But I prefer a more pragmatic approach to
> the developers and companies who don't.
I actually think it's good if we appear to be a little more "hard-liners"
than we really are. If companies assume that only open source will get
the
- Original Message -
From: "David Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nicholas Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jeff Garzik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [LONG RANT] Re: L
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Garzik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nicholas Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 200
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 05:07:02AM -0600, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> > Now what's at stake ? Look at the Windows world. Also there, companies
> > could release their drivers as Open Source. Quick, how many do this ?
> > Almost none. So, given the choice,
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> FWIW, -every single- Windows driver source code I've seen has been
> bloody awful. Asking them to release that code would probably result in
> embarrassment.
Maybe a good analogy is that drivers are to hardware companies like
excrements are to living creatures: in order to s
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:53:14AM +0100, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Fine. So you've reinvented AIX, HP-UX, SCO, etc. The question is what
> you expect from Linux. After all, you strongly disagree with the main
> common denominator of Linux developers, that it
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> From: "Jeff Garzik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > FWIW, -every single- Windows driver source code I've seen has been
> > bloody awful. Asking them to release that code would probably result in
> > embarrassment. Same reasoning why many companies won't rel
> Subject: Re: [LONG RANT] Re: Linux stifles innovation...
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeff Garzik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Werner Almesberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Garzik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Werner Almesberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:07 AM
Subject: Re:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Now what's at stake ? Look at the Windows world. Also there, companies
> could release their drivers as Open Source. Quick, how many do this ?
> Almost none. So, given the choice, most companies have defaulted to
> closed source. Consistently compla
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Company wants to make at least some bucks with their
> products and the driver is part of the product. So they may want to
> release a driver which is "closed source".
Usually, the driver doesn't play a large role in product differentiation,
at least not in a po
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" wrote:
>
> _BUT_ all these people that want to use Linux ask sometimes for help
> outside their vendor contracts, they get told exactly this: "Go away
> where. You're not using the "one true source from kernel.org". They're
> more locked it with their "open software"
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:00:03PM -0600, Gregory S. Youngblood wrote:
>
> > I remember being at a computer show in Minneapolis where a small company
> > was showing off this mouse that worked on a variety of surfaces without a
> > ball. I'm tryin
>> > On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
>> > the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
>> > commended for them.
>> >
>> The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years old with
>> optical mice. It wasn't MS's idea.
>
> I
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Steve VanDevender wrote:
> Andre Hedrick writes:
> > Those are not threats they are terms to enforce the License you agreed
> > upon the very act of editing the source code that you are using in the
> > kernel.
>
> Get it right, Andre. The mere act of editing a file that
Andre Hedrick writes:
> Those are not threats they are terms to enforce the License you agreed
> upon the very act of editing the source code that you are using in the
> kernel.
Get it right, Andre. The mere act of editing a file that is part of a
GPL-licensed source distribution doesn't bind
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Bla, bla, bla. The usual Andre Hedrick rant about how superior you're
> to all other, threats and the cited hostility of "open source advocats"
> about everyone not their opinion.
>
> You may be a really talented software developer with a
In message <96o9uf$j4h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Henning P.
Schmiedehausen" write
s:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory Maxwell) writes:
>
> >when you said commercial above) drivers for Linux, including the steaming
> >pile of garbage your company ships.
>
> "hostile behaviour of the open source community
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 12:00:03PM -0600, Gregory S. Youngblood wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:15:08PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
> > > > the new optical mice are
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Gregory S. Youngblood wrote:
> I remember being at a computer show in Minneapolis where a small company
> was showing off this mouse that worked on a variety of surfaces without a
> ball. I'm trying to remember if the mouse was optical or used yet another
> method of function
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:50:17AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
[...]
> If you do not like that rule, LEAVE!
[...]
> if I catch you abusing the privildge of use of my work, I will
> pursue you in terms defined as actionable.
[...]
> And you do not have the knowledge or authority to comment on th
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:15:08PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> > >
> > > On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
> > > the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> > > commended for them.
> > >
> > The
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >- Innovative new hardware devices are more likely to be based on
> >Linux than any Microsoft OS. For example, the TiVO, the coolest
> >improvement to television since the VCR.
Henning,
When you begin to learn that OpenSource is the way a
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 09:15:08PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
> > the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> > commended for them.
> >
> The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael H. Warfield) writes:
>
> > Excuse me? A 1 billion dolar investment in Linux is not
> >supporting it?
>
> On their own hardware.
Which is really the point and they won't be the only ones. If IBM wants
to attract and keep custome
Hi.
Thought I'd toss my 0.02sek into the discussion.
> > > objective, arent we?
> >Nope. Are you claiming to be?
> >
> > > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> >... Rant delete
Henning P. Schmiedehausen writes:
> The matter with me is: "Vendors AAA ships its hardware product with a
> driver for i386/Linux". The driver may be closed source, but at least
> there _is_ a driver. Russell now says: "This is bad, because I can't use
> the driver for my ARM box. So the vendor sh
I wrote:
>The matter with me is: "Vendors AAA ships its hardware product with a
>driver for i386/Linux". The driver may be closed source, but at least
>there _is_ a driver. Russell now says: "This is bad, because I can't use
>the driver for my ARM box. So the vendor should ship no driver at
>all.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> Uniform support from most of the hard- and software vendors on this
> planet. Support for 50.000+ different hardware expansions with all
> their features from grabber cards to color printers and network cards
> to 3D graphics accelerators
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Felix von Leitner) writes:
>Thus spake Henning P . Schmiedehausen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> "If a company does not write a driver which works on all hardware
>> platforms in all cases and gives us the source, then it is better,
>> that the company writes no drivers at all."
>>
> Don't forget Microsoft's latest innovation: integrating copy
> protection for music into the upcoming Windows XP OS, preventing
> people from fully controlling their own computer hardware. Feh.
Thank people like IBM and the big movies companies like Sony for that.
-
To unsubscribe from this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Ford) writes:
>> On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
>> the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
>> commended for them.
>>
>The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years old with
>optical mice. It
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael H. Warfield) writes:
> Excuse me? A 1 billion dolar investment in Linux is not
>supporting it?
On their own hardware.
> Setting up tier 1 and tier 2 support services for a half a dozen
>distributions is not supporting it?
For their own hardware.
> Porting their A
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Torrey Hoffman) writes:
[...]
>Some things to consider, in no particular order:
[...]
Uniform support from most of the hard- and software vendors on this
planet. Support for 50.000+ different hardware expansions with all
their features from grabber cards to color printers and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory Maxwell) writes:
>when you said commercial above) drivers for Linux, including the steaming
>pile of garbage your company ships.
"hostile behaviour of the open source community towards people that
don't agree to their ideas".
q.e.d. Thanks.
Regards
*** Please don't reply directly to me, either via CC: or To:.
*** I'll pick up any replies via linux-kernel. Thanks.
Henning P . Schmiedehausen writes:
> Maybe not. But you can use this print engine API to pay anyone to
> write a driver for you. What you just said, is exactly my point. You
> sai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael H. Warfield) writes:
> No... Close Source and proprietary protocols are then anthema to
>BOTH progress and innovation. When innovation is done in a close arena, it
These are two different things! Proprietary protocols are the death to
variety and customer choic
>
> On the other hand, they make excellent mice. The mouse wheel and
> the new optical mice are truly innovative and Microsoft should be
> commended for them.
>
The wheel was a nifty idea, but I've seen workstations 15 years old with
optical mice. It wasn't MS's idea.
-b
-
To unsubscribe f
Jacob Luna Lundberg wrote:
>> Speaking as a Linux _USER_, if this happens, can I get said print
>> engine working on my ARM machines with these closed source drivers?
>> Can Alpha users get this print system working? Can Sparc uses
>> get it working? What? I can't? They can't? Well, its no g
Dennis wrote:
>At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
>>
>> > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be
ones
>> > to comment on it as such.
>>
>>What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
>>than I ever h
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> ... If you
> write for Windows, you have an ugly and complicated API with lots of
> bugs
Yes, that is true.
> , but the API itself is stable since six (!) years. You can write
> programs that run on 95/98/ME/NT/2000 unchanged.
That is not always true, as I
[Jacob Luna Lundberg]
> Just out of curiosity, why can't the specification be along the lines
> of a vendor data file saying ``if you want the printer to do x then
> say y'' and ``if the printer says x then it means y''. That ought to
> add a lot of functionality right there.
Think about it. A
[Dennis]
> For example, if there were six different companies that marketed
> ethernet drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one
> to buy..perhaps with different "features" that were of value to
> you. Instead, you have crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and
> its not wort
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> BSDI is distributing FreeBSD now. They havent done anything useful to
> support it. They are just cashing in on it.
That's BS last I heard they were merging their SMP support.
Btw have you submitted bug reports for your networking card? If not you
have no o
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:19PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> > that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
> > You "guys" like to have source, and ther
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
>
> You "guys" like to have source, and there is nothing wrong with that. But
> requiring that all code be dist
Thus spake Dennis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> You are confusing "progress" with "innovation". If there is only 1 choice,
> thats not innovation. Expanding on a bad idea, or even a good one, is not
> innovation.
This is bizarre.
Please name one innovation in the history of mankind that could not be
Thus spake Henning P . Schmiedehausen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> "If a company does not write a driver which works on all hardware
> platforms in all cases and gives us the source, then it is better,
> that the company writes no drivers at all."
> "If I can't force a company to write a driver for e
> both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that
> they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that
> it is problematic.
I've been technical director of an ISP. I help manage sites that have not
insignificant loads and no eepro100 driver problem
> When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk
> about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable
> drivers if they want to.
Its called the source code, which includes example driver skeletons. WHere
is the documentation for writing your own etinc d
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:08:48PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> good commercial drivers dont need fixing. another point. You are arguing
> that having source is required to fix crappy code, which i agree with.
Too bad we havn't seen much (any?) good closed-source (what you ment to say
when you said co
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:56:15PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 05:59 PM 02/16/2001, John Cavan wrote:
> >Dennis wrote:
> > > objective, arent we?
> >
> >You might ask yourself the same question...
> > > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > > drivers for the
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:08:48PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:10 PM 02/16/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Dennis wrote:
> >...
> > > objective, arent we?
> >Nope. Are you claiming to be?
> >
> > > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > > drivers for the e
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 03:05:36PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > > to comment on it as such.
> >What truth? I have seen more "innovation"
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> >
> > > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > > to comment on it as such.
> >
> >What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open So
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Michael Bacarella wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:29PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> > >It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
> > >Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
> > >misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. N
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> >
> > > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > > to comment on it as such.
> >
> >What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open So
At 05:59 PM 02/16/2001, John Cavan wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
> > objective, arent we?
>
>You might ask yourself the same question...
>
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > with d
At 07:01 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Olsen wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
>
> > There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
> > to comment on it as such.
>
>What truth? I have seen more "innovation" in the Open Source movement
>than I ever have in my 18+ years of
At 07:10 PM 02/16/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>...
> > objective, arent we?
>Nope. Are you claiming to be?
>
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
>... Rant dele
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 02:38:29PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> >It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
> >Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
> >misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
> >unexpected. And to the comment "It i
Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrit :
[...]
> When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk
> about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable
> drivers if they want to.
May be said vendors should give a look at l-k between 2.2 and 2.4 instead
of spendi
At 08:34 PM 02/16/2001, Neal Dias wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>It's not about facts, it's not about the truth, it's not about Jim
>Allchin being an idiot or deluded. It's about propaganda,
>misinformation, and marketing. It's about business. Nothing new, nor
>unexpecte
> Speaking as a Linux _USER_, if this happens, can I get said print
> engine working on my ARM machines with these closed source drivers?
> Can Alpha users get this print system working? Can Sparc uses
> get it working? What? I can't? They can't? Well, its no good to
> me nor them. You've j
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 01:37:58PM +, Russell King wrote:
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen writes:
> > But at least I would be happy if there would be a printing
> > engine that is entirely open source and all the printer vendors can
> > write a small, closed source stub that drives their printer
At 05:31 PM 02/16/2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Dennis wrote:
> > The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
> > bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
> > "sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source"
I'm using these drivers just fine on a couple of streaming servers that
get hit pretty hard.
Dennis wrote:
> both lock up under load. You dont run a busy ISP i guess. The fact that
> they come out with a new release every few minutes is clear evidence that
> it is problematic.
--
=
>
>Fortunately despite your best efforts there is now a choice in 2.4
When is that specification for 2.4 drivers going to be available? Talk
about "stifling the marketplace"!!! Vendors cant even write reliable
drivers if they want to.
db
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
At 05:20 PM 02/16/2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
> > drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
> > with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
> > crappy GPL code that l
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
