Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18169
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.electronics.design, comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? |
| Date | 2014-09-21 03:28 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <lvlune$s9c$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (24 earlier) <lvkp07$iv3$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lvkrko$652$1@dont-email.me> <lvl1ka$716$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lvlbqk$ek$1@dont-email.me> <lvlr5r$l0i$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 9/21/2014 2:25 AM, Don Y wrote: > On 9/20/2014 7:05 PM, rickman wrote: >>>>> It *requires* you to share it! >>>> >>>> No, that is factually incorrect. You are free to modify GPL code all >>>> day long >>>> and not share it with anyone at any time. GPL talks about what you >>>> must do >>>> when you *do* share it. >>> >>> "Sharing" meant to also include *sell* a product incorporating that >>> code! >>> You can use GPL'd tools to create other works. But, if you take those >>> GPL tools and derive yet another product from them (or any portion of >>> them), then the license terms apply to those derived works as well. >>> >>> IF YOU ONLY USE THAT DERIVED WORK INTERNALLY, then you have no practical >>> obligations. However, if you start selling or distributing that >>> modified >>> (enhanced/derived/etc.) tool, then the license's terms apply. >> >> BINGO. The point is you have not explained what is so onerous about >> the GPL. > > Anything that would discourage others from embracing a codebase! Given > that > there are many commercial concerns who avoid GPL'd code, this seems to be > a reasonable concern (ask THEM for their reasons why -- perhaps they > dislike > the letter 'G'? -- it doesn't really matter to me what their reasons > are. As > I said before, I am not interested in educating people as to why or how > they > can embrace GPL.) > >> You seem to have a problem with the fact that others will be subject >> to the >> same conditions if they use your work which is GPL'd. So? So far you >> have not >> explained why *any* of your work would be covered by GPL. > > My work would be tainted by the GPL if it was derived from any GPL'd > "product". > E.g., if I snip the network stack from the Linux (GPL'd!) kernel and use > that > as the basis for my MODIFIED network stack, then I am subjected to the > terms > of the GPL. Isn't that easy enough *not* to do? We started out talking about *using* Linux. Everyone knows that if you modify Linux and then ship it you have to make your mods available. No one disputes that. > If I snip the network stack from the NetBSD (or FreeBSD) kernel > (nonGPL'd) then > the issue goes away. This should be a no-brainer decision! > >>>>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers? >>>>> Competitors?? >>>> >>>> I am my employer and I don't use GPL code in my work. But that is >>>> only because >>>> there is very little GPL code available in the work I do. I mostly >>>> write my >>>> stuff from scratch so far. There are processors cores for FPGAs which >>>> I might >>>> consider using some day. But not so far. >>> >>> If those cores are GPL'd, then you will have to conform to the GPL's >>> terms >>> if you adopt one (for use in a product -- if you instead use one to >>> create >>> an electronic flyswatter that you use in your office, no problems!) >> >> Yes and that only makes sense to me. > > As does the same for a piece of GPL'd software! > > Now, REAL hypothetical for you: you have two essentially equivalent cores > that you can embrace. One license says: "Put a copyright notice in your > manual that acknowledges that a portion of YOUR PRODUCT was derived from > code that was originally copyrighted by ABC". The other license says > this PLUS: "Make available the sources for the core that you got from us > to all of your users/customers. If your modifications can not easily be > separated from that, then publish your modifications as well. And, > ensure that anyone to whom you sell or license your product/FPGA design > ALSO follows these rules" > > Which core are you going to use, all else being equal? Since when is all else equal? > At the very *simplest* level, the former license is far easier to > OBVIOUSLY comply with: "Here is the copyright notice that you required > printed clearly on page 12 of my manual." No wiggling around with > lawyers (potentially) arguing about whether your code fragment: > if (FatherName == "Bob") then... > is effectively the same as: > if (NameFather == bob) then... > etc. > > (e.g., imagine specifying a logic term as a sum of products vs. an > equivalent product of sums -- and arguing about whether they are > just thinly veiled attempts to sidestep licensing requirements: > "No, this isn't 'Windows'; it's 'Doorways'!" > :-/ > >>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>> who use >>>> GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they won't >>>> even if I >>>> ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they aren't >>>> obligated to >>>> share with me. >>> >>> Um, you might want to reread the terms of their license! And, if, >>> indeed, >>> they are NOT complying with those terms, call the FSF-police and let >>> them badger them into compliance. >> >> No, they have no obligation to distribute source to anyone they didn't >> sell or >> give the binary code to. > > Actually, 3b suggests otherwise: > > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three > years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your > -----------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete > machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be > distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium > customarily used for software interchange; or, > > The point is to get you involved in redistributing the GPL'd code. Only if you ship the code. >>> The whole point of the GPL is to *promote* sharing -- by requiring you >>> to propagate the licensed code (you are encouraged to also share your >>> improvements but can excise them from what you distribute if they are >>> clearly "freestanding" >>> >>> 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in >>> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any >>> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third >>> parties under the terms of this License. >>> >>> 2c) ... These requirements apply to the modified work as a >>> whole. If >>> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the >>> Program, >>> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in >>> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those >>> sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you >>> >>> So, if I excise my "patches" from the "derived/modified" work, then I >>> can distribute *those* as "separate works" under a different license >>> (of my choosing). >>> >>> This only makes sense when you are building a "module" or some other >>> object that has merit in a free-standing manner. NOT when you are >>> modifying something else and adding or altering its functionality in >>> some (small or large) way! >> >> You get so hung up on the details you can't see the issues. > > The issue is when and how the GPL "attaches" to a work. I.e., if I can > make something that has inherent freestanding value (no GPL'd code > included), then it is free of the GPL's taint. (as it SHOULD BE!) > > So, unless your work is free-standing in the absence of GPL'd code, > you're work is probably affected! Bingo! >>>>> *I* may opt to share it; but, someone who embraces my codebase might >>>>> NOT want >>>>> to share it or his further improvements. E.g., a commercial entity >>>>> that >>>>> wants >>>>> to exploit the work without sharing his enhancements, being called >>>>> on to >>>>> redistribute the original sources that he received or even tipping his >>>>> hand as >>>>> to *what* codebase he based his product on! (e.g., if my license >>>>> terms >>>>> force >>>>> him to include a notice that says "Portions copyright Don Y" that >>>>> doesn't >>>>> tell anyone *what* sources he used, which version, changes, etc. And, >>>>> *I* am >>>>> under no obligation to provide those sources to those "other >>>>> interested >>>>> parties", either! I can abandon it or take it in yet another >>>>> direction, >>>>> entirely!) >>>> >>>> A bit long winded and confusing, but this is different. Here you are >>>> talking >>>> about a product that someone used GPL code in and now wants to profit >>>> by. Yes, >>>> here the GPL says you must share the original code as well as your >>>> modified code. >>>> >>>> Your code would be shared though him since he is obligated to share it >>>> if he >>>> used it in a product. >>>> >>>> If you are describing a situation where your code was written with GPL >>>> code and >>>> distributed that way but you also distribute it as stand alone... I >>>> find that a >>>> very odd scenario and one that is very unlikely. Certainly I have no >>>> horse in >>>> this race so I won't even try to figure it out. >>> >>> The point is to let others accept your (my) code with as light a "touch" >>> as is legally possible. I surely don't want to place things in the >>> public >>> domain. I *deserve* to hold the copyright on my works. However, >>> telling >>> others whom I would like to ENCOURAGE to adopt those works that they >>> have >>> some "other requirements" that they must additionally satisfy (and be >>> prepared >>> to defend in a court of law) is entirely different. >> >> None of this makes sense to me. You say the GPL is too restrictive on >> those >> you share your work with but you want to retain your copyright... GPL >> doesn't >> take your copyright. It requires you to *share*. > > GPL doesn't take away anyone's copyright. They still are the legal > copyright holder. However, the GPL requires you to freely *share* > that which is covered by the GPL! Which is exactly what you said you wanted to do, share your work. > As copyright holder to a nonGPL'd work, I don't have to share with > *anyone* that I choose not to share with! Or, I can change my mind > later. Or, put different terms on each licensee. My choice, entirely. No, you can't share your code and then later decide not to... unless you forbid those you share it with to share it again. Is that your intent. > "Microsoft Windows, Copyright XXXX Microsoft Corporation" > > They don't have to make sources available. They don't have to agree to > sell > you a BINARY license to their product! They can change their mind next > week. > They can offer a license that is good for 30 days. Or, "one boot" (like > the > 99c per play iTunes example I mentioned). > > However, if MS did something that caused their codebase to become > tainted with > GPL'd code, then the rules are different! By embracing the GPL'd code, > they > would have subjected themselves to its terms! > >>> I can't think of anyone who would cringe at burying a copyright >>> notice in >>> some publication -- ink is practically free! >>> >>> OTOH, agreeing to provide *my* sources (even WITHOUT their >>> modifications) >>> to *others* -- presumably who also want to COMPETE in their market -- >>> raises >>> the bar. Not only the (reasonably trivial) responsibility of putting it >>> on a publicly accessible server somewhere (for some amount of time) but, >>> also, ANNOUNCING to those competitors that you started with THIS >>> codebase! >>> (I don't think many businesses are eager to share ANYTHING about their >>> products or processes! They fret when they have to disclose INGREDIENTS >>> on food labels -- and those say nothing about QUANTITIES, etc.) >> >> Yeah, some people don't like that, but many *do*. > > And THE MARKET decides who to reward/punish! If consumers were concerned > about no ingredient labels on products (assuming this was legal) and > avoided those products, then the folks who didn't provide ingredient > lists would either have to change their policy or live with reduced > sales. > > Obviously, the free software "market" has decided that the GPL isn't the > solution! If people disliked the fact that PostgreSQL isn't under the > GPL and *avoided* it -- in favor of MySQL (which is GPL'd, IIRC), then > the PostgreSQL folks would either decide to embrace the GPL *or* live > with the market that NOT embracing it leaves them! Really? The market has decide? Seems to me like there is tons of the GPL stuff all over the place. >>>>> David seems to think I *can* do this under the terms of the GPL. I >>>>> believe >>>>> he is wrong. (read the GPL -- any version -- for yourself) >>>> >>>> I haven't seen anything by David that says this. >>> >>> He has EMPHATICALLY stated that: >>> >>> "I think you totally and completely misunderstand the GPL, >>> totally and >>> completely misunderstand how it applies to an operating system like >>> Linux, >>> and totally and completely misunderstand how open source development >>> works, >>> where it is a good choice, and where it is a bad choice." >>> >>> I believe I have stated what I *want* from a license. And, why the >>> simple >>> "3 paragraph" example is so much more preferable (Gee, folks complain >>> about >>> the lengths of my posts -- but not the length of the GPL vs. other >>> licenses??). >>> >>> Given that he is so convinced that I "misunderstand", I would like >>> him to >>> clarify how the GPL lets me -- and anyone who embraces my codebase -- do >>> "whatever they want" with it! And still comply with the terms of the >>> GPL! >> >> There is no license that lets others do "whatever they want" with your >> code >> other than just placing it in the public domain with no copyright and no >> restrictions. Is that what you want? > > "Put a copyright acknowledgement in your printed documentation" is > pretty damn > close to "do whatever you want"! I'm reasonably sure anyone using a GPL'd > product would be willing to "accept" those terms as well! No, that is not the same. If you don't retain copyright someone else is free to copyright it and prevent *you* from sharing it. That is total freedom to do with it as they please. >>> Can YOU tell me how I can do this? How I can tell a potential >>> commercial >>> entity that they can freely embrace my codebase in their products >>> JUST by >>> adding those 3 paragraphs to some "user manual"? That, as long as they >>> have done exactly this, I will have no legal recourse to come after them >>> for violating the terms of the license, etc.? >> >> But you started out talking about why you didn't *use* Linux. How is >> that >> related to giving away your code? > > I've covered this in another post. Briefly, because I will consult the > sources for any OS that I am USING, here, in the natural course of > maintaining > that software and LEARNING FROM THE WORKING IMPLEMENTATION THAT IT > REPRESENTS. > Why learn about some code that I can't/am-not-willing to incorporate into > my own codebase? Why "infect" my codebase with a license from an > encumbered > piece of software when I can, instead, USE (day to day) unencumbered > software > and learn from *that*? Why indeed. -- Rick
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