kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
Gee, what a tolerant attitude. I state my preference -- not a demand, just a preference -- that the old interfaces be retained IN ADDITION to whatever new features are added, and you say "Bah go away." I'm sorry, I must have missed the rule that says only people who agree with you are allowed to post their opinions on lkml.
The current system works just fine for my needs. I've never seen the point of trying to "improve" things that are already good enough. But now that you've explained it to me so politely, I understand. My top priority is supposed to be what YOU want, even though you don't care anything at all about what I want.
So, in the spirit of your oh-so-helpful message, let me say this: Get stuffed, jerk.
Robert Love <[email protected]> on 05/17/2002 06:14:45 PM
To: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec@Altec
cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
So we should curb progress in the name of you not spending 2 minutes rewriting your bash scripts or repopulating your bash history with new commands?
Bah go away. I and most other people here are the exact opposite - give us new features, less bugs, or innovation and we will surely change. Otherwise we would still be in the stone age.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Wayne, the only change (other then better, faster functions) is the elimination of steps.
if it will satisfy you you can continue to do a make mproper and make dep and just ignore the 'no target found' messages.
David Lang
Quoted 60 lines · On Sat, 18 May 2002 [email protected] wrote:
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 00:09:19 -0500
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3Gee, what a tolerant attitude. I state my preference -- not a demand, just a preference -- that the old interfaces be retained IN ADDITION to whatever new features are added, and you say "Bah go away." I'm sorry, I must have missed the rule that says only people who agree with you are allowed to post their opinions on lkml.
The current system works just fine for my needs. I've never seen the point of trying to "improve" things that are already good enough. But now that you've explained it to me so politely, I understand. My top priority is supposed to be what YOU want, even though you don't care anything at all about what I want.
So, in the spirit of your oh-so-helpful message, let me say this: Get stuffed, jerk.
Robert Love <[email protected]> on 05/17/2002 06:14:45 PM
To: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec@Altec
cc: [email protected]Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
So we should curb progress in the name of you not spending 2 minutes rewriting your bash scripts or repopulating your bash history with new commands?
Bah go away. I and most other people here are the exact opposite - give us new features, less bugs, or innovation and we will surely change. Otherwise we would still be in the stone age.
Robert Love
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 3 lines · On Sat, 18 May 2002 00:09:19 -0500 [email protected] escribió:
The current system works just fine for my needs. I've never seen the point of trying to "improve" things that are already good enough. But now that you've
A years ago, having a car engine of about 50 Cv/litre and all though it was the best.
...now we have some engines like the bmw m3's 3.3 engine of about 103 Cv/litre, or Honda S2000, 2.0, about 120 Cv/litre, Audi S3 1.8 turbo 122 cv/litre, audii rs4 twin turbo about 140 cv/litre...
I think that evolution uses to be a good thing ;)
Diego Calleja