Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 12:32 AM, Brian McGroarty wrote: > > > 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. > > InformationWeek ( in http://www.informationweek.com/story/ > showArticle.jhtml?articleID=12801004) > reports: > SCO Group claims that Unix has been used to accelerate the > development of Linux > in two key ways--line-by-line copying of Unix System V source > code into the Linux > kernel and copying derivative Unix code that enables > multiprocessing capabilities.
2.0.0 had dual processor capability. when i found an overflow quad box, i put 2.1.124 on it. later on, 2.0.X kernels would do 4-way as well, but i never bothered going back. so if 2.2 kernels are clear then SMP predates any SCO claim. > I have no multiple processor machines. Why on earth would I be pay a > penny to license multiprocessing capabilities which I can't use? > > I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows > over....sigh. and 2.2 works fine on multiprocessor machines. -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
