Subject: Re: autoconf(9) tree in an odd hardware arrangement
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Michael <email@example.com>
Date: 11/24/2007 10:25:46
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Nov 24, 2007, at 05:25, De Zeurkous wrote:
> On Sat, November 24, 2007 10:11, Marco Trillo wrote:
>> On 11/24/07, De Zeurkous <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, November 24, 2007 02:05, Michael Lorenz wrote:
>>>> On Nov 23, 2007, at 20:04, De Zeurkous wrote:
>>>>> Of course, the chance of having something progressive as this
>>>>> seriously by the NetBSD term is probably near-zero. I'm willing
>>>>> to be
>>>>> proven wrong, but realistically this is not going to happen.
>>>> You're welcome to actually /write/ that code.
>>> Just because I know the Right Thing to do, I need to implement it by
>>> myself? Of course, you don't have an ethical obligation to do the
>> But then, why are you complaining that 'is not goin to happen' if you
>> won't do it?
> Perhaps because I am extremely busy doing the Right Thing in other
But you still have enough time to complain here? Can't be all that
> If no-one has standing objections, I consider my theory accepted
> and I expect an experimental implementation by the kernel
> developers to follow.
You can consider and expect whatever you want as long as you want -
no response means nobody could be arsed to respond, nothing else.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----