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? -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Jefferson, LA USA | | | | "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian | | because I hate vegetables!" | | unknown | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
