Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18129
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design, comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? |
| Date | 2014-09-20 12:19 -0700 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <lvkk5a$7dl$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (17 earlier) <lvh2fd$kqj$1@dont-email.me> <lvh42d$1gk$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lvh5ao$8qc$1@dont-email.me> <lvhoim$oq3$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lvk3nq$sao$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 9/20/2014 7:42 AM, David Brown wrote:
> This is exactly the sort of fight I wanted to avoid - I tried to give you a few
> /technical/ pointers to why Linux might do a better job for you, and in trying
> to battle ignorance and myths I have stupidly let myself get drawn in. And for
> every point I correct, you post another three paragraphs of new imagined
> issues. I simply don't have the time and energy to spend battling such
> determined fixed positions - this is why I and a good many others usually avoid
> many of your threads.
David, you refuse to understand the basic issue that drives me (and others)
away from Linux: we want to avoid the GPL LIKE THE PLAGUE! I have no desire
to invest time bettering a product that I can't then use AS I PLEASE. And,
that I can't pass on to other "licensees" in the same way!
I don't believe you can get real experience with ANY product if you just
throw toy applications at it. E.g., evaluation copies of software are usually
useless because you won't willingly undertake a REAL project with them out
of fear you will bump into some limitation of the "intentionally crippled"
product -- just as you near project completion or a delivery date! Why risk
a project on an unknown??
I make heavy use of an RDBMS in my current projects. I could use any generic
RDBMS for my work -- even a commercial product like Oracle. But, that means I
am stuck with whatever that product provides. And, any bugs that come with it
(no chance to peek under the hood to see why its behaving as it is, etc. -- to
me, this is the REAL advantage of FOSS! A "live, working reference
implementation"!)
I could use MySQL and gain access to the sources. I am then free to make
any changes or improvements to it that enhance my product's "performance".
But, then I have to assume the encumberances that the GPL puts on MySQL.
[I.e., I move to a FOSS product so I can peek under the hood]
In order to avoid the GPL in a RELEASED product, I would then have to *switch*
my product over to an unencumbered RDBMS (e.g., PostgreSQL). And, learn all
about *it*, see how my MySQL patches apply to PostgreSQL (i.e., they WON'T!),
figure out what other issues PostgreSQL presents -- along with patches for
those, etc.
THEN, I can freely drag my patched PostgreSQL implementation into my
product without any other "considerations! Here, in essence, is the ENTIRE
license:
"Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written
agreement is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice
and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR
DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING
LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS
DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS
ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS NO OBLIGATIONS
TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS."
Note that it doesn't impose any forward going requirements on me -- to
redistribute my updates, to redistribute the sources from which I created
"my version", ensure that a server has those files available for a particular
amount of time, etc. "Do with it what you wish!" No worry about the
"Microsoft (or GPL!) police" coming after me for failing to adhere to the
terms of the license!
Contrast that with MySQL's license (or Linux's).
[I.e., I move from a GPL'd FOSS product to an "open" FOSS product so I can
avoid the encumberances that the GPL imposes]
The same argument extends to other pieces of FOSS software FROM WHICH I
LEARN AND GARNER EXPERIENCE.
Neither the Linux, *BSD nor <whatever> "kernels" have the features that I
want. So, NONE has any appeal to me AS A KERNEL that I can "inherit".
You've claimed I can "bolt on" many of these features to the Linux kernel.
All of those features are intended to allow for more robust, secure
"applications" that are easier to implement under those environments...
but, the kernel itself should NOT benefit from those capabilities???
That's like offering a preemptive multitasking system and then opting
to implement it on a single-threaded, nonpreemptive kernel! (i.e.,
NOT let the kernel's design benefit from the same capabilities that
it is trying to extend into "userland") Do you not see the silliness
in this argument? One of the most complex pieces of software in a
system -- one that MUST be robust -- should be designed with ad hoc
methods by some priestly elite??
["Well, that allows the kernel to be used in applications that DON'T
need those capabilities! And, we can get some epsilon of additional
performance out of it!" Great! And what's your justification for
applications that *do* need those capabilities? "We didn't want to
have to rewrite it from scratch. (We figured you could tolerate the
LOWER performance of a non-native implementation...)"]
Kernel hackers shouldn't be part of some "sacred order". Someone wanting
to write a Widget DRIVER should be able to do so in much the same way that
he could if writing a Widget APPLICATION! And, the rest of the kernel
should be as "unworried" about his efforts as the other APPLICATIONS
would be if he was writing an application! I.e., his driver can't muck
with hardware or data structures that shouldn't be VISIBLE to him! And,
his "components" will inherently "play nice" with the other components
in the system because they all use the same API and feature set in their
implementation!
> If you are happy with BSD, that's great. I am genuinely pleased that you are
> content with what you have. And I hope you will forgive my misguided attempts
> at making new suggestions that I thought might have made things easier for you
> - it was an attempt to help, not a call for battle.
You and many Linux users seem to think Linux is The Answer to every problem.
It isn't. Nor is Windows, FreeBSD, NetBSD, BeOS, Solaris, etc.
We each have particular criteria that we use for selecting the *tools* that
we use. I don't use NetBSD for a "desktop" -- Windows has that covered
far and beyond any other OS (in terms of the variety and sophistication
of the applications that I can purchase). Where windows stands on a
"technological" basis isn't important to me. Nor is the amount of memory
that it uses for a particular purpose, how long it takes to boot, etc. I
don't care about how many "security updates" it requires -- I just don't let
the boxes talk to the outside world! (if you are celibate, you don't have to
worry about condoms!)
I want specific features in the APPLICATIONS that I use -- and Windows-based
applications have those features (regardless of the fact that I have to pay
money for them). And have *had* those features far longer than any FOSS OS!
(what was the state of FOSS 3D CAD, schematic capture, PCB layout, DTP, etc.
in the mid 80's? Gee, Linux wasn't even a gleam in Linus's eye at the time!
Should I have waited until those apps came along "for free"? Then, discarded
all of the first-hand experience I had accumulated with their Windows
predecessors? Just to save the money that I had already SPENT?? Or, rather,
to become a faithful fanboy?)
I'm not interested in clipping code from "applications" -- the applications
that I develop are unlikely to be encountered on a desktop -- Windows, Linux,
*BSD or other! There are no apps from which my code can directly "benefit".
Instead, I run NetBSD for the OS mechanisms and fundamental SERVICES that
it presents and that I *use* WHILE I am writing code for my own OS's and
applications. Note the subject of this thread -- and another, recently -- is
concerned with appliances. I'm not trying to build an Atom-based, desktop
machine! If I was, then I would be far more concerned with what performance I
can get from the video subsystem instead of being EAGER to settle for 80x25!
A few weeks back, I replaced a NetBSD-based box, here, that provided many
of the lightweight services: DNS, TFTP image server, BOOTP/DHCP, font
server, print server, mail handler, etc. It was "up" for over 1000 days.
The "replacement" process consisted of pulling the laptop drive from
that box and cramming it into the new box (6"x6" instead of ~12x8"),
booting, making note of the "not configured" devices listed in dmesg(8),
adding those lines to the configuration file for a new kernel, building
that kernel and installing it. I spent more time trying to get the
drive to physically fit inside the box than I did "adapting" the
software on it for the new hardware (faster, more modern, more memory,
etc.)!
BECAUSE I HAD 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE DOING THIS WITH *BSD BOXEN! I.e.,
what I learned from actually USING *BSD's made it easier for me to do
what I needed to do. Just like what I learn from USING PostgreSQL
makes it easier for me to modify PostgreSQL to do what I want it to do!
Or, from using NetBSD in my DNS service, "file system", etc.
So, it is relatively easy for me to replace all of the various configuration
files scattered around the file system and rework the applications and
services to use a centralized database to supply these "settings" in a
more unified manner. And, to use the security features of that database
to ensure certain applications can't "peek" at settings that should
have been "private" (which would be enforced using file permissions
in a traditional implementation). And, to extend the capabilities and
performance of those services by leveraging these features.
Why would I want to rewrite Linux's init(8) if I couldn't then copy ALL
of init.c into my product, unencumbered? Why would I want to gain experience
using Linux's bootstrap process if I wasn't going to benefit directly from
that experience -- other than in troubleshooting how my "development
system" works?
Why go *that* route when the same capabilities are available in OTHER codebases
that will support the same sort of development activities (i.e., so I can get
first-hand experience on a day-to-day basis) with the added benefit of being
unencumbered?
When Linux replaces their license with the one cited above, *then* I'll
consider investing time in it. Assuming, of course, that it offers
anything that I *want* and haven't already acquired by then!
Until then, I really don't care if Linux supports more NICs, video adapters,
applications, users, motherboards, file systems, etc. It's simply "not a
contender".
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-17 00:46 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-17 04:05 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? dplatt@coop.radagast.org (David Platt) - 2014-09-17 11:09 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-17 22:52 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mroberds@att.net - 2014-09-17 08:21 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-17 02:00 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-17 13:08 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? JW <none@dev.null> - 2014-09-17 08:24 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mroberds@att.net - 2014-09-17 21:44 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? dplatt@coop.radagast.org (David Platt) - 2014-09-17 15:04 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 00:28 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-18 03:41 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 03:31 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-18 18:12 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 15:53 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-18 19:22 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 17:18 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-09-18 21:16 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 21:44 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 09:19 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 01:36 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 11:53 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 03:10 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 13:02 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 04:26 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 13:50 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 10:16 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-20 16:42 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 12:19 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-20 21:58 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 13:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-20 23:00 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:14 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-21 02:12 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 20:05 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-21 12:45 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 16:34 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 17:29 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-21 00:12 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 19:01 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:17 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-21 02:17 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-21 13:25 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-21 15:56 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-21 18:19 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-21 09:37 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 14:22 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-21 23:13 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 14:20 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-21 23:15 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 20:20 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:09 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:05 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 23:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 03:28 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 01:27 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-21 14:20 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-21 13:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 12:06 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 09:55 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-20 23:54 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 15:46 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 19:09 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:29 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:11 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 20:40 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 00:56 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 23:40 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 03:35 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 01:47 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 07:33 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 11:56 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 20:32 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2014-09-22 11:03 +1000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 18:18 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2014-09-22 11:53 +1000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 19:05 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 19:05 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-21 11:50 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2014-09-21 18:50 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 20:09 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2014-09-21 21:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 22:12 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 09:38 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 10:15 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 04:59 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-22 15:38 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 10:02 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 01:44 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 05:25 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 12:44 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 04:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 13:00 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 05:02 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 15:19 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 14:35 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 07:55 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 17:35 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 10:06 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-22 10:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-09-22 19:48 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 20:46 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-08 12:34 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-08 13:10 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-08 17:31 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-08 14:53 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-08 15:06 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-09 19:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-09 13:44 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-09 22:31 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-09 17:29 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-09 17:31 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-09 21:25 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-09 23:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-09 21:56 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-10 18:48 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-10 10:43 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mjb@signal11.invalid (Mike) - 2014-10-11 21:25 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-10-10 18:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-10-11 03:05 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 18:43 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 23:36 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 16:48 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 01:05 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 18:47 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 02:11 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 22:24 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 00:29 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-23 10:07 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-23 07:14 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 23:43 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-23 13:14 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 18:18 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 19:28 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-23 19:58 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 16:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-23 19:57 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-08 12:39 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 18:38 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 23:41 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 23:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 05:34 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 02:21 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-24 09:42 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 09:51 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 18:23 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-24 08:15 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-24 21:51 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-24 15:57 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 09:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 18:19 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 15:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 18:38 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 15:59 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 19:03 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-24 00:15 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 19:30 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-24 02:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 20:17 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 17:26 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 21:20 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 23:42 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-08 12:41 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 17:03 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-22 10:19 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 15:21 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 12:55 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-09-22 12:25 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 05:37 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 14:37 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 14:32 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 07:01 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 15:22 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 08:01 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 00:35 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> - 2014-09-23 09:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-23 07:16 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2014-09-23 14:45 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 10:08 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 10:03 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-23 13:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 20:53 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 15:00 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 22:14 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 15:51 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 10:17 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-23 13:57 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 18:28 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 04:39 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? langwadt@fonz.dk - 2014-09-20 16:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:17 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? langwadt@fonz.dk - 2014-09-21 12:24 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 00:00 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-09-19 23:15 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-19 07:58 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 10:41 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-19 07:59 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-19 03:08 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 01:17 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-09-19 21:15 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-20 14:36 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2014-09-19 10:02 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-19 04:20 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2014-09-18 16:20 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 10:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2014-09-19 09:36 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 01:27 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-09-19 21:35 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 11:54 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mroberds@att.net - 2014-09-18 19:33 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 13:18 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Przemek Klosowski <przemek@tux.dot.org> - 2014-09-21 12:34 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-21 11:54 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? edward.ming.lee@gmail.com - 2014-09-17 08:10 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-17 15:11 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-17 22:53 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-17 13:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-18 03:35 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Allan Herriman <allanherriman@hotmail.com> - 2014-09-18 13:16 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-09-25 13:51 +0300
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? dplatt@coop.radagast.org (David Platt) - 2014-09-25 09:58 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-09-29 21:46 +0300
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-25 10:07 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-25 18:32 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@hotmail.com> - 2014-10-10 09:53 +0000
csiph-web