posted by Almafeta on Thu 5th Apr 2007 03:29
Post a Comment
(Hmm. We can't edit our conversations, and conversation starters can only have 500 characters while comments can have either 8000 or 8192 (depending on the page in question). Interesting.)
Well, to clarify: I'm trying to find an emulator that will run an emulated x86 environment (preferrably an emulated x86-64 environment), and with which I can load my newly-compiled OS kernels fairly painlessly.
RE[2]: Comment by Almafeta
by Almafeta on Thu 5th Apr 2007 16:08
in reply to "RE: Comment by Almafeta"
RE[3]: Comment by Almafeta
by aesiamun on Thu 5th Apr 2007 16:09
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Almafeta"
RE[3]: Comment by Almafeta
by Minty Fresh on Thu 5th Apr 2007 18:42
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Almafeta"
RE[4]: Comment by Almafeta
by RandomGuy on Mon 9th Apr 2007 16:37
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Almafeta"
The anti-GPL stuff probably has people skeptical about your seriousness.
Yes, it has. Hell, not only anti GPL but also anti open source.
Hey, Almafeta, it's not like your code becomes open source just because you have open source software on the same pc or use an open source compiler or run it under an open source emulator.
What the heck are you afraid of? That your OS will become too 1337 and everyone will copy it? You'd still get rich - just look at Linus.
I'm really curious why you hate FOSS so very much.
And I think you'd better tell it here than in the comments section of an article.
Anyway, good luck with your OS.
RE[3]: Comment by Almafeta
by fretinator on Thu 5th Apr 2007 20:10
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Almafeta"
The idea wasn't to "limit" conversations as much as it was to make sure that it's not where people post what should be articles. We can allow a little more space for conversations.
I do not agree that you should be able to edit conversations. Once there's a comment, at least.
RE[2]: Comment by Almafeta
by drewunwired on Tue 10th Apr 2007 22:51
in reply to "RE: Comment by Almafeta"
RE[3]: Comment by Almafeta
by Adam S on Tue 10th Apr 2007 23:35
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Almafeta"





0 