Re: [OT] SCO is going all out now

From: Brian McGroarty (brian_at_mcgroarty.net)
Date: 07/22/03

  • Next message: Michael D. Crawford: "Re: how to have a gpg public key?" 
    Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:11:20 -0500
To: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>

    On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:37:10PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 23:32, Brian McGroarty wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:25:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
    > [snip]
    > > SCO has made no claims against the 2.2 kernels.
    > >
    > > If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some incriminating code
    > > in 2.4, stepping back to 2.2 until the relevant bits are purged from
    > > 2.4 is all anyone should need to do to cover their assets in countries
    > > where this becomes an issue.
    > >
    > > AC maintains functional backports of all the important bits, so few PC
    > > Linux users should be significantly affected by an (IMHO) unlikely
    > > judgement in SCO's favor. If you maintain a large number of systems
    > > professionally with 2.4, an advance test of 2.2 might be prudent.
    >
    > How does the lack of modern features (USB2.0, ieee1394, DVD, etc)
    > in 2.2 stack up against FreeBSD-current?

    2.2 can support ieee1394 and DVD playback (with patches in common use
    if they're not yet mainstream) -- I don't know the status of DVD
    filesystems or USB2.0.

    FreeBSD supports all of the above.

    Do you suspect there could be a long enough delay between releasing
    the alleged infractions and producing a clean kernel that fully
    changing OSes could make sense, however? 

    -- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Michael D. Crawford: "Re: how to have a gpg public key?"