Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:13:12 +0200 | From | andrea@cpushare ... | Subject | Re: [patch] let CONFIG_SECCOMP default to n |
| |
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 05:54:02PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Ehm I wasn't aware all linux vendors in the world owe that to you, or > that you own their kernel configuration
I perfectly know nobody owes anything to me, I said I didn't expect it because it sounds very weird having to take an anti-fedora position in a project like CPUShare. Hope you didn't get it wrong because I'd be sad having opened this whole topic if you were wrong and SECCOMP was actually enabled in fedora.
> I have no idea; I don't work there. Also I checked Fedora, not RHEL, and > Fedora is done by the Fedora project, not by Red Hat the company. If you > want to ask them to enable it, you should do so on the fedora-devel > mailing list
Aren't Ingo and Alan Fedora? If they ask N in the main kernel, and they already set it to N in fedora I'm unsure what I should discuss further with them.
And most of this whole thread is grossly offtopic, I'm amazed nobody complained yet about the questions they ask about cpushare legal details on this list, I guess it was entertaining enough for people not to complain just yet.
I won't post more emails from my part... hope it helps reducing the noise. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |