Re: New procfs implementation

On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 05:10:04PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Jeremie Koenig, le Sat 04 Sep 2010 01:07:21 +0200, a écrit : > > How about "--default-owner" or "--default-uid" ? > > "default" could imply that it's used for much more cases than just this > one. What about "no-owner"? Maybe "no

Re: [tschwinge+n...@gnu.org: Duke Nukem Forever Returns, Will Really Be Released in 2011]

Hi, On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 04:33:22PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > So, there's no escape anymore: we'll have to release next year, 2011. > Finally. As far as I know, *everyone* is expecting Duke Nukem Forever > and the GNU Hurd to appear at the same time, yet to be bundeled (see >

Re: New procfs implementation

Jeremie Koenig, le Sat 04 Sep 2010 01:07:21 +0200, a écrit : > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:16:50PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > (...) > > > Ah, so it's really not like "nobody", that's for tasks whose owner is > > > yet unknown, but potentially root-owned or such, or something like this? > > The

[tschwinge+n...@gnu.org: Duke Nukem Forever Returns, Will Really Be Released in 2011]

Hello! So, there's no escape anymore: we'll have to release next year, 2011. Finally. As far as I know, *everyone* is expecting Duke Nukem Forever and the GNU Hurd to appear at the same time, yet to be bundeled (see ). | Date: Fri, 03 Sep 201