| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Did SCO Really Reveal the Code to IBM, as Darl Claims? (Groklaw)Did SCO Really Reveal the Code to IBM, as Darl Claims? (Groklaw)Posted Nov 21, 2003 11:27 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524)In reply to: Did SCO Really Reveal the Code to IBM, as Darl Claims? (Groklaw) by stanmuffin Parent article: Did SCO Really Reveal the Code to IBM, as Darl Claims? (Groklaw) And of those 6 lines, 5 have no effect. 2 because they are empty, and 3 because the ifdef-magic to make sure the file is compiled only once doesn't actually matter in this case since the compilation blows up on the first attempt because of the #error directive anyways. Thus the file in question reduces to: #error ARM architecture does not support SMP spin locks From which we can conclude that SCO seem to think it's "valuable IP" and a trade secret how to NOT do SMP on ARM. Hilarious.
(Log in to post comments)
Did SCO Really Reveal the Code to IBM, as Darl Claims? (Groklaw) Posted Nov 21, 2003 18:26 UTC (Fri) by djabsolut (guest, #12799) [Link] Here's an idea: insert comments everywhere into Linux 2.6.whatever with the words SMP, JFS, RCU, etc. (e.g. "this bit of code has nothing to do with RCU" or "this code works exactly the same in an SMP and non-SMP system"). Oops... you think i just broke the SCO intellectual property "detector" ?
Did SCO Really Reveal the Code to IBM, as Darl Claims? (Groklaw) Posted Nov 21, 2003 18:58 UTC (Fri) by s_cargo (guest, #10473) [Link] And of those 6 lines, 5 have no effect. 2 because they are empty...Yeah, but where did Linux get the blanks line, eh? Proprietary Unix has blank lines. Obviously they were stolen from Unix.
|
|
||||||||||||