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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
