"Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
module. That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
had to take it out.
Q: That hook had been in there for years! Why did you suddenly decide
to remove it now?
A: I was really not aware of the hook, and the fact that it was only
good for a binary module to use. I'm sorry, I should have realized
this years ago, but I didn't. Recently someone pointed this hook out
to me, and the fact that it really didn't belong in there due to the
kernel's policy of such hooks. So, once I became aware of it, I had
no choice but to remove it.
Q: Why did you delete the whole pwc driver from the tree?
A: That is what the original author (Nemosoft) wanted to happen. It was
his request, and I honored it. Go ask him why he wanted it out if
you are upset about this, I merely accepted his decision as he was
the current maintainer and author of the code.
Q: But you took away my freedom! Isn't Linux about freedom?
A: Again, it was Nemosoft's decision. The kernel also has to abide by
it's documented procedures, so that is why the hook had to go.
Remember, the original driver was released under the GPL, so you are
free to take that code and maintain it if you so desire. I'd gladly
support someone taking the GPL code and agreeing to maintain it, and
resubmitting it for inclusion in the main kernel tree. That's the
freedom that Linux provides, no closed source OS would allow you to
do that, if a company pulled support for a product (which happens all
the time.)
Q: You jerk, I had invested lots of money in this camera, you are
costing me money by ripping it out. You should be ashamed of
yourself!
A: See the above question about freedom. If it means that much to you,
then offer to maintain the code, it's that simple.
Q: You are keeping companies from wanting to write binary drivers for
Linux.
A: Duh! What do you think all of the kernel developers have been
stating for years, in public. Binary drivers only take from Linux,
they do not give back anything. See Andrew Morton's OLS 2004 keynote
address for more information and background on this topic.
Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.
"Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
module. That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
had to take it out.
Q: That hook had been in there for years! Why did you suddenly decide
to remove it now?
A: I was really not aware of the hook, and the fact that it was only
good for a binary module to use. I'm sorry, I should have realized
this years ago, but I didn't. Recently someone pointed this hook out
to me, and the fact that it really didn't belong in there due to the
kernel's policy of such hooks. So, once I became aware of it, I had
no choice but to remove it.
Q: Why did you delete the whole pwc driver from the tree?
A: That is what the original author (Nemosoft) wanted to happen. It was
his request, and I honored it. Go ask him why he wanted it out if
you are upset about this, I merely accepted his decision as he was
the current maintainer and author of the code.
Q: But you took away my freedom! Isn't Linux about freedom?
A: Again, it was Nemosoft's decision. The kernel also has to abide by
it's documented procedures, so that is why the hook had to go.
Remember, the original driver was released under the GPL, so you are
free to take that code and maintain it if you so desire. I'd gladly
support someone taking the GPL code and agreeing to maintain it, and
resubmitting it for inclusion in the main kernel tree. That's the
freedom that Linux provides, no closed source OS would allow you to
do that, if a company pulled support for a product (which happens all
the time.)
Q: You jerk, I had invested lots of money in this camera, you are
costing me money by ripping it out. You should be ashamed of
yourself!
A: See the above question about freedom. If it means that much to you,
then offer to maintain the code, it's that simple.
Q: You are keeping companies from wanting to write binary drivers for
Linux.
A: Duh! What do you think all of the kernel developers have been
stating for years, in public. Binary drivers only take from Linux,
they do not give back anything. See Andrew Morton's OLS 2004 keynote
address for more information and background on this topic.
Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.
[^] # Re: euhh ... mainteneurs oupsss ?
Posté par 21rdoma . En réponse à la dépêche Fin du support Linux des webcams Philips. Évalué à 1.
A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
module. That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
had to take it out.
Q: That hook had been in there for years! Why did you suddenly decide
to remove it now?
A: I was really not aware of the hook, and the fact that it was only
good for a binary module to use. I'm sorry, I should have realized
this years ago, but I didn't. Recently someone pointed this hook out
to me, and the fact that it really didn't belong in there due to the
kernel's policy of such hooks. So, once I became aware of it, I had
no choice but to remove it.
Q: Why did you delete the whole pwc driver from the tree?
A: That is what the original author (Nemosoft) wanted to happen. It was
his request, and I honored it. Go ask him why he wanted it out if
you are upset about this, I merely accepted his decision as he was
the current maintainer and author of the code.
Q: But you took away my freedom! Isn't Linux about freedom?
A: Again, it was Nemosoft's decision. The kernel also has to abide by
it's documented procedures, so that is why the hook had to go.
Remember, the original driver was released under the GPL, so you are
free to take that code and maintain it if you so desire. I'd gladly
support someone taking the GPL code and agreeing to maintain it, and
resubmitting it for inclusion in the main kernel tree. That's the
freedom that Linux provides, no closed source OS would allow you to
do that, if a company pulled support for a product (which happens all
the time.)
Q: You jerk, I had invested lots of money in this camera, you are
costing me money by ripping it out. You should be ashamed of
yourself!
A: See the above question about freedom. If it means that much to you,
then offer to maintain the code, it's that simple.
Q: You are keeping companies from wanting to write binary drivers for
Linux.
A: Duh! What do you think all of the kernel developers have been
stating for years, in public. Binary drivers only take from Linux,
they do not give back anything. See Andrew Morton's OLS 2004 keynote
address for more information and background on this topic.
Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.
"Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
module. That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I
had to take it out.
Q: That hook had been in there for years! Why did you suddenly decide
to remove it now?
A: I was really not aware of the hook, and the fact that it was only
good for a binary module to use. I'm sorry, I should have realized
this years ago, but I didn't. Recently someone pointed this hook out
to me, and the fact that it really didn't belong in there due to the
kernel's policy of such hooks. So, once I became aware of it, I had
no choice but to remove it.
Q: Why did you delete the whole pwc driver from the tree?
A: That is what the original author (Nemosoft) wanted to happen. It was
his request, and I honored it. Go ask him why he wanted it out if
you are upset about this, I merely accepted his decision as he was
the current maintainer and author of the code.
Q: But you took away my freedom! Isn't Linux about freedom?
A: Again, it was Nemosoft's decision. The kernel also has to abide by
it's documented procedures, so that is why the hook had to go.
Remember, the original driver was released under the GPL, so you are
free to take that code and maintain it if you so desire. I'd gladly
support someone taking the GPL code and agreeing to maintain it, and
resubmitting it for inclusion in the main kernel tree. That's the
freedom that Linux provides, no closed source OS would allow you to
do that, if a company pulled support for a product (which happens all
the time.)
Q: You jerk, I had invested lots of money in this camera, you are
costing me money by ripping it out. You should be ashamed of
yourself!
A: See the above question about freedom. If it means that much to you,
then offer to maintain the code, it's that simple.
Q: You are keeping companies from wanting to write binary drivers for
Linux.
A: Duh! What do you think all of the kernel developers have been
stating for years, in public. Binary drivers only take from Linux,
they do not give back anything. See Andrew Morton's OLS 2004 keynote
address for more information and background on this topic.
Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.
voila la reponse du type qui a virer le hook