On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Ethan Benson wrote:

not really. unless we buy new hardware of course (assuming OF 
engineers get some clue at some point.)

	could you please get yourself a "clue" and stop making such stupid
statements, this will prevent people from thinking you are as foolish as
your statements.

not really, otherwise we would have mkfs.hfs and a 2.4 kernel 
compatible hfs.o, its obviously complicated enough that nobody wants 
to spend the time on it. (more to the point its irrelevant how 
complicated it is, nobody is working on it.)

	2.4?  if its 2.3 you mean, hfs works fine with the latest (2.3.22
on my box is doing hfs fine), and i recall long ago formatting an hfs
floppy, though i forgot the util, i think it was in hfs-utils or
something....  i may be wrong though...

using DOS partition tables and a DOS partition in place of non free 
HFS has no problems either, we still need a second stage quik that 
does something useful however.  (ISO filesystem might work too but I 
have had problems getting BF to read from it.)

can you sneak up on the OF engineers and give them a good healthy 
whack with a clue stick?

<flame>
	personally, this sounds like a lot of whining, this really has no
place here.  if you could please add some constructive comments on what
needs to be done instead of "this sucks, of sucks, you morons morons need
to fix it", why don't *you* do something about it then?  why don't you try
and fix it?

enuff with the bitching already, this is the second time i've seen you do
this...  its getting old dude...

</flame> 

Best Regards,
Ethan Benson

ani


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/