search for: vehemently

Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:03:50AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 02:50:38PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> > For laptops, great. For anything else, not so much. For example, >> > it's supposed to be an *ENTERPRISE* o/s... why does it >> > automatically, without ever asking, install anything wifi?

On 10/13/2017 10:19 AM, Anand Buddhdev wrote: > .. > Stop trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Whee, I just _know_ I'm going to be positively skewered (and maybe even plonked!) for this.... but, hey, it's Friday, and this post is meant to be a bit funny.? So lighten up, and enjoy a short read. obHumor: I actually have a piece of furniture (a small table) with square

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Lamar Owen wrote: > If the maintainers of packages that want to run well on CentOS 7 need to have > /var/run/$some-file persistence (or pseudo-persistence, which is the current > behavior enabled by re-creating said files) then those maintainers will need > to change their packages to match actual behavior or file a bug report with > upstream to change the

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:23:52 -0400 Mauricio Tavares <raubvogel at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:15:30 -0500 > > Jason Warr <jason at warr.net> wrote: > >> > >> I'm curious what has made some people hate LVM so much. > > > > (3)

> Hopefully.. considering their DSP guy and a handful of others were laid > off.. the new DSP they have really blows too so I'm forced into using the > old one.. oh well. The ogg plugin author was not an employee. He was a contractor. He's still working on the plugin regardless. > Oh that's cool.. and I assume the WMP plugin is available through the wacky > MS

Hi Joe, thanks for working on this. My honest opinion on it is that time would be better spent improving the documentation, as the current documentation is archaic. I think this has come up on the list before, but to rehash: * Start out by saying "LLVM can be built with make or CMake, and checked out with svn or git", and have "make", "CMake", "svn", and

> - I have to *remember* I submitted the patch (not hard, but it is a > cost). If you forgot, the chances are high that the patch was unimportant. I do my development on local git branches, so every time I do `git branch`, I'm reminded. There's really no overhead. > - I have to save that e-mail from llvm-commits so I can refer to it when > the inevitable ping is

Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> writes: >> - I have to *remember* I submitted the patch (not hard, but it is a >> cost). > > If you forgot, the chances are high that the patch was unimportant. I > do my development on local git branches, so every time I do `git > branch`, I'm reminded. There's really no overhead. Every time you have to check it's

<dag at cray.com> writes: > Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> writes: > >>> Really, patches get dropped *all the time* to the point where pings are >>> a regular part of the development process. That's a huge waste of time >>> for everyone. >> >> It's only a waste of time if your workflow is entirely synchronous >> with patch

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > I think it makes a lot of sense in this case. The idea is that you > increase indentation in the "error" case. I vehemently disagree. Use the return value and type that make sense for the ABI and will be unsurprising when reading the code. Use a ! when you need to produce early-exit code flows. A note about error objects: you should always have a variable and/or type name here. This gives you the opportunity to make...

...That is not lvm's fault, but the distro's decision. > > Agreed, but remember that hatred is not a rational thing. When one sees <snip> Hold on thar, pardner. I don't "hate" LVM, but don't care for it. And in most cases, or at least my own, and the person who is vehemently against it, it's based on personal experience. How is that "not a rational thing"? For that matter, haven't you ever gotten gunshy when something that's billed as the LATESTGREATESTTHINGSINCESLICEDBREAD is buggy, and not ready for prime time? Certainly 10-12 years ago, that...

...he RHEL 7 folks do something, perhaps make a package, > to make pseudo-persistence super easy to get. > The RHEL 7 folks do something, perhaps make a package, > to allow users to fix this particular problem, e.g. > by adding pseudo-persisitence for a file used by a package. I disagree vehemently. Please STOP giving any advice or making any suggestions along the lines of persisting /var/run. It *is* meant to be volatile. Anyone who is packaging an application for CentOS 7 must realise this, and package their application accordingly. NO OTHER SOLUTION is acceptable. Folks, please stop givin...

...ter from here :) Ah ok.. cool enough. > > I was talking about listener counts, not MAXTTL. >If you mean controlling whether it's displayed on the server, then >certainly those are server-configurable only :) That's the only logical >way for them to be :) Yes.. you were so vehemently against the idea of listener counts that I was thinking that you weren't going to have support for them in any way, shape or form in this new project.. that's why I mentioned it. ;) >Sniffing is quite difficult. If you can sniff, you've likely gotten >onto the box anyway and c...

...... There are various > boneheaded ways in which people try to use to assign some kind of > SumSq to main effects in the presence of interaction, and they are all > wrong - although maybe not very wrong if the unbalance is slight. People keep saying this --- very vehemently --- and it is NOT TRUE. Point 1 --- imbalance is really irrelevant here, a fact which is usually (always?) overlooked. If the design is balanced, all ``types'' of sums of squares are the same. The sequential sums of squares which R will happily produce might well contain ``significant...

David A. Green wrote: > I find llvm-commits daunting. So much that I hesitate to do reviews. > As Chris commented, I am not very active on that list. There's a reason > for that beyond lack of time. So the goal is to make it easier for a member of the community to review only commits to a sub-tree that interests them? Let's say it may or may not be easier for reviewers to

On 04/02/15 00:51, Lamar Owen wrote: > On 04/01/2015 08:12 PM, Always Learning wrote: >> 1. What is the logically reason for this alleged "improvement" ? > > I never said it was an improvement. I just said that I didn't think it was > that big of a deal, and it boggles my mind that people are calling a change of > an ISO's file name 'unwise' and even

I'm sorry I even sent the original email. To be clear, I am trying to write some specific code, and gmock would make my life significantly easier. I'm not really trying to start or win a debate about how to write tests in LLVM. I think that debate should be held around tests, not around abstract libraries if it is even worth having at all. I am a big believer in giving people a powerful

Small change to remove difference between Xen and mainline deactivate_mm. While there, cleanup prepare_arch_switch as well. This generates identical code. Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> --- diff -r ba46bd7f5cdf linux-2.6-xen-sparse/include/asm-xen/asm-i386/mmu_context.h --- a/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/include/asm-xen/asm-i386/mmu_context.h Fri Aug 12 15:59:34 2005 +++

...rgument that "GCC does it" is used far too often in the LLVM list, and I can't say I'm a big fan of it. GCC did not take *only* smart decisions in its life (neither did LLVM), and copying everything from one side to the other blindly is not a good strategy. In the general case, I vehemently agree with this. I am deeply concerned about the direction of some of the target assemblers in this regard. I’m a little more sympathetic to this specific case because it’s a feature of not just binutils, but the ARM tools also and last I checked, well documented. That said, great care and deliber...

...gaining the author's permission. This is NOT the way the print media operates -- this could impact everyone you know. Imagine pulling CD-ROMs from libraries and computers from elementary schools. H.R. 2281 passes and you have started down this path running. The Nomad Mobile Research Centre is vehemently opposed to this proposed treaty. It has serious freedom of speech implications. It also gives companies a license to produce shoddy, inadequate systems without fear of exposure. Call your House Representative today and voice your concerns. .o. Simple Nomad .oOo. Data warrior, know...