Subject: RE: autoconf(9) tree in an odd hardware arrangement
To: Michael <email@example.com>
From: De Zeurkous <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/25/2007 01:09:27
On Sat, November 24, 2007 15:25, Michael wrote:
>[snip PGP crap -- use RFC822 headers for that]
> Hash: SHA1
> 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 <email@example.com> 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
> busy then.
To complain here is also my job. When I have a potentially useful opinion,
I voice it. It would also help for you to understand to read JOBS in
zsh(1), the manual of twm(1), and learn about the concept of time sharing
>> 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.
It's their job to respond. If they can't be arsed to evaluate new (to
them) ideas and concepts, they'd better stick with collecting stamps
instead of trying to manage a software project with the intention to
survive and even evolve technologically.
> have fun
>[snip PGP crap -- use RFC822 headers for that or attach it]
% NetBSD, zsh, twm, nvi and roff junkie
From the fool file:
I don't see why the way people have historically partitioned disks should
dictate which kernels we build and distribute by default in the future.
--Darren Reed (darrenr@NetBSD.org), NetBSD tech-kern