Because there have been many more comments that "The rule for 2.4 is
'swap == 2*RAM' and that's the way it is" and "disk space is cheap -
just add more" than there have been "this is going to be fixed" which is
extremely discouraging and doesn't instill me with all sorts of
confidence that this problem is being taken seriously.
Or are you saying that if someone is unhappy with a particular
situation, they should just keep their mouth shut and accept it?
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- #!/usr/bin/perl -w $_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$t=255;@t=map {$_%16or$t^=$c^=($m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110; $t^=(72,@z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z) [$_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h=5;$_=unxb24,join "",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$d= unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d >>12^$d>>4^$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q* 8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]} print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;evalusage: qrpff 153 2 8 105 225 < /mnt/dvd/VOB_FILENAME \ | extract_mpeg2 | mpeg2dec -
http://www.eff.org/ http://www.opendvd.org/ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/