Re: Request to stop cdrecord's bogus accusations of Linux.
Joerg Schilling schrieb am 2006-01-30:
> Matthias Andree <email@example.com> wrote:
> > with this open letter, I officially request that you stop your
> > misrepresentations in cdrecord that claim Linux were noncompliant in a
> > place where it is conforming to POSIX.
> > I am not speaking on behalf of any other party here, this is purely my
> > personal opinion that is supposed to make sure both sides play fair.
> > <ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/AN-2.01.01a05>
> > (dated 2006-01-29 20:20" states
> I am sorry to see that you still insist in claiming things that are not in this
> You did inform me about this Linux "self non-compliance" and you are the only
> person who did claim that there is a problem. I spend a lot of time in trying
> to find a work around for this problem and I am in hope that I did find a
> working solution.
Compliance is a term used in contexts such as "standards" compliance.
Even "self compliance" is given, the Linux manpage matches observed
Fact however is that I approached you with a patch that moved the
allocation into root-mode code, and later with a patch that reset
RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to RLIM_INFINITY, and we tested several variants forth
and back until you settled for raising RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to some 6 MB.
> For this reason it is apropriate to call the code that deals with the problem
> "a workaround".
Which was not at all my point, but "compliance" is. I don't mind you
calling it workaround or call 2.6.9 incompatible with 22.214.171.124.
Re-read my message - and I find it interesting to read this NOW, after
I'd mailed this and discussed this earlier.