On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 21:08, InfoHelp wrote: > Edit, less haste: > > On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:04:51 +1200, InfoHelp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 20:40:20 +1200, Dale Anderson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Being that uname can and has been patched , has been broken in more ways > >> than one in its existance and currently still requires patches in latest > >> coreutils to return the expected output ...I dont quite see how this > >> provides "closure" (tm) .......nor is it really worthwhile. > >> > >> Dale. > > > > Is it or is it not a statement by the Distro team of what type "Operating > > System" they are distributing? > Is a "closure" (tm) that helps get SCO off our backs in the marketplace > not "really worthwhile"?
wtf has this to do with SCO? SCO is about the kernel. The more attention you pay to SCO the worse it is. Like whiny kids, the best policy is to ignore them. They are toast. I think distros ave better thins to go than patch uname to say "SUSE/Linux"[1] instead of "GNU/Linux" [1] substitue your distro name. > > > Rik > > -- > > GNU/Linux Users - charting the course - prototype7: > > Fedora/SuSE/Mandrake-Slackware/Gentoo/LFS-(Perl/Linux)-Debian/BSD- > > GNU/Hurd
