search for: scoundrel

...yeah, whatever you feel like doing. go ahead.' > User interface decisions are never driven by security. If security is mentioned then it is used as a fig-leaf to shut down dissent. Security when applied to these sorts of decisions is the patriotism of the FOSS world. The last refuge of scoundrels who have no desire to admit error and wish no discomfort from making any. The actual reasons for change usually come down to the aesthetic values of a small group of developers, or often a single individual, with the power to impose their vision on the rest of humanity. And the desire to do so....

...eel like doing. go ahead.' > User interface decisions are never driven by security. If security is > mentioned then it is used as a fig-leaf to shut down dissent. > > Security when applied to these sorts of decisions is the patriotism of > the FOSS world. The last refuge of scoundrels who have no desire to > admit error and wish no discomfort from making any. > > The actual reasons for change usually come down to the aesthetic > values of a small group of developers, or often a single individual, > with the power to impose their vision on the rest of humanity....

We''ve gotten several reports on #merb that each request gets a new session ID in 0.4.0. I quickly tested and verified. scoundrel tracked it down, and I think it''s fixed. If you need to apply this by hand to your 0.4.0 install, it''s a 1 line fix: Index: /trunk/lib/merb/controller.rb =================================================================== --- /trunk/lib/merb/controller.rb (revision 904) +++...

...nbound-magrathea notransfer=yes Does anybody have any suggestions as to how to clear this odd audio issue, or pointers to what configuration options I should tweak? Ideally, I just want a completely uncompressed 64k channel, as if we were just using ISDN. Thanks in advance. -- What contemptible scoundrel has stolen the cork to my lunch? - W.C. Fields

Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin at 6wind.com> writes: > On 10/06/2014 18:48, Henning Schild wrote:> Hi, >> In a first prototype i implemented a ivshmem[2] device for the >> hypervisor. That way we can share memory between virtual machines. >> Ivshmem is nice and simple but does not seem to be used anymore. >> And it >> does not define higher level devices,

Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin at 6wind.com> writes: > On 10/06/2014 18:48, Henning Schild wrote:> Hi, >> In a first prototype i implemented a ivshmem[2] device for the >> hypervisor. That way we can share memory between virtual machines. >> Ivshmem is nice and simple but does not seem to be used anymore. >> And it >> does not define higher level devices,

...se than with explaining it to us. In case you'd rather not work with the QEMU community: I'm not passing judgement on that (heck, I have had days when I'd rather not, too). But if somebody's reasons not to work with us include GPL circumvention, then that somebody is a scoundrel.

...se than with explaining it to us. In case you'd rather not work with the QEMU community: I'm not passing judgement on that (heck, I have had days when I'd rather not, too). But if somebody's reasons not to work with us include GPL circumvention, then that somebody is a scoundrel.