From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964857AbWA3SDe (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:03:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964854AbWA3SDe (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:03:34 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.21]:26772 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964859AbWA3SDd (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:03:33 -0500 X-Authenticated: #428038 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:03:27 +0100 From: Matthias Andree To: Joerg Schilling Cc: matthias.andree@gmx.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cdwrite@other.debian.org Subject: Re: Request to stop cdrecord's bogus accusations of Linux. Message-ID: <20060130180327.GA15332@merlin.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joerg Schilling , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cdwrite@other.debian.org References: <20060130173722.GC3973@merlin.emma.line.org> <43DE511A.nail2DG117NWT@burner> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43DE511A.nail2DG117NWT@burner> X-PGP-Key: http://home.pages.de/~mandree/keys/GPGKEY.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Joerg Schilling schrieb am 2006-01-30: > Matthias Andree wrote: > > > with this open letter, I officially request that you stop your > > misrepresentations in cdrecord that claim Linux were noncompliant in a > > place where it is conforming to POSIX. > > > > I am not speaking on behalf of any other party here, this is purely my > > personal opinion that is supposed to make sure both sides play fair. > > > > > > (dated 2006-01-29 20:20" states > > I am sorry to see that you still insist in claiming things that are not in this > announcement. > > You did inform me about this Linux "self non-compliance" and you are the only > person who did claim that there is a problem. I spend a lot of time in trying > to find a work around for this problem and I am in hope that I did find a > working solution. Compliance is a term used in contexts such as "standards" compliance. Even "self compliance" is given, the Linux manpage matches observed behavior, too. Fact however is that I approached you with a patch that moved the allocation into root-mode code, and later with a patch that reset RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to RLIM_INFINITY, and we tested several variants forth and back until you settled for raising RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to some 6 MB. ... > For this reason it is apropriate to call the code that deals with the problem > "a workaround". Which was not at all my point, but "compliance" is. I don't mind you calling it workaround or call 2.6.9 incompatible with 2.6.8.1. Re-read my message - and I find it interesting to read this NOW, after I'd mailed this and discussed this earlier. -- Matthias Andree