Slashdot Mirror

Question is about the SGI code's Unix licence.

Answer is the answer that caldera itself put the questionable code under a BSD licence in 2002.

Being a LKML lurker, here are a few of the new features.

• In-kernel Module Loader and Unified parameter support [kernel.org]
• Nanosecond Time Patch [iu.edu]
• Fbdev Rewrite [iu.edu]
• Linux Trace Trollkit (LTT) [iu.edu]
• statfs64 [theaimsgroup.com]
• POSIX Timer API [theaimsgroup.com]
• Shared Pagetable support [theaimsgroup.com]
• Hotplug CPU Removal Support and Kernel Probes (no link provided)

Being a LKML lurker, here are a few of the new features.

• In-kernel Module Loader and Unified parameter support [kernel.org]
• Nanosecond Time Patch [iu.edu]
• Fbdev Rewrite [iu.edu]
• Linux Trace Trollkit (LTT) [iu.edu]
• statfs64 [theaimsgroup.com]
• POSIX Timer API [theaimsgroup.com]
• Shared Pagetable support [theaimsgroup.com]
• Hotplug CPU Removal Support and Kernel Probes (no link provided)

Being a LKML lurker, here are a few of the new features.

• In-kernel Module Loader and Unified parameter support [kernel.org]
• Nanosecond Time Patch [iu.edu]
• Fbdev Rewrite [iu.edu]
• Linux Trace Trollkit (LTT) [iu.edu]
• statfs64 [theaimsgroup.com]
• POSIX Timer API [theaimsgroup.com]
• Shared Pagetable support [theaimsgroup.com]
• Hotplug CPU Removal Support and Kernel Probes (no link provided)

Being a LKML lurker, here are a few of the new features.

• In-kernel Module Loader and Unified parameter support
• Nanosecond Time Patch
• Fbdev Rewrite
• Linux Trace Trollkit (LTT)
• statfs64
• POSIX Timer API
• Shared Pagetable support
• Hotplug CPU Removal Support and Kernel Probes (no link provided)

Being a LKML lurker, here are a few of the new features.

• In-kernel Module Loader and Unified parameter support
• Nanosecond Time Patch
• Fbdev Rewrite
• Linux Trace Trollkit (LTT)
• statfs64
• POSIX Timer API
• Shared Pagetable support
• Hotplug CPU Removal Support and Kernel Probes (no link provided)

Being a LKML lurker, here are a few of the new features.

• In-kernel Module Loader and Unified parameter support
• Nanosecond Time Patch
• Fbdev Rewrite
• Linux Trace Trollkit (LTT)
• statfs64
• POSIX Timer API
• Shared Pagetable support
• Hotplug CPU Removal Support and Kernel Probes (no link provided)

Toolkit

Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor

Christoph Hellwig has been, according to this web page, "in the top-ten list of commits to both the Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 tree". The page also mentions another fascinating piece of news, that he worked for Caldera for at least part of the time he was making those kernel contributions:

"After a number of smaller network administration and programming contracts he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution."

In 2002, he offered a paper on "Linux-ABI: Support for Non-native Applications" which is described like this:

"The Linux-ABI project is a modification to the Linux 2.4 kernel that allows Linux to support binaries compiled for non-Linux operating systems such as SCO OpenServer or Sun Solaris."

Back in 2002, he was described, in connection with his appearance at the Ottawa 2002 Linux Symposium, like this:

"Christoph Hellwig
"Reverse engineering an advanced filesystem
"Christoph Hellwig is employed by Caldera, working on the Linux-ABI binary emulation modules. In his spare time he cares for other parts of the kernel, often involving filesystem-related activities."

So, in short, he was contributing to the kernel and working for Caldera on Linux/UNIX integration at the same time. His work for Caldera was on the Linux kernel ("he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution"), and he also did work on his own on the kernel. Did Caldera know about his freelance contributions, in addition to knowing about his work for them? What do you think? He used his hch at caldera.de email address when doing it. All contributions to the kernel are publicly available anyway. They certainly could have known. As for his job, his signature on his emails back in 2001 was:

"Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH".

He used the email address hch at bsdonline.org sometimes too, and here you can see some of his Linux-abi contributions. Here are some of his contributions to JFS, Journaled File System. Yes, that JFS. Here he is credited as sysvfs maintainer, and he confirms it in this email, writing, "I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it."

Here is a list of the operating systems that use or can handle the file system sysvfs:

"sysvfs: UNIX System V; SCO, Xenix, Coherent e21
"operating systems that can handle sysvfs: FreeBSD (rw), LINUX (R), SCO (NRWF)"

Here's a page listing by author (alphabetically by first name), with his emails to linux-kernel in June 2003, so he is still contributing.

Here he is listed on the Change log for patch v2.4.17. Here he tells Andrew Morton in 2002 that he will

...is always to take a swipe at HURD.

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0307 .2/1054.html

-dk

Linus actually said "we" and not "I". And by "we" he, of course, meant Andrea Arcangeli.

Here is the link where Andrea says he had IBM send Linus a copy of the RCU patent paper work.

Just switch to PPC Linux 2.5.75, where you can get 30 years of uptime. And some people complain about this like it's a bad thing!!

Downloaded, compiled and installed. Working since 4 hours on a Slackware-9.0-current, asus L8460K notebook (p3/1000, 256mb ram, i440bx, S3 savage/MX, ess allegro) and quite standard compilation options (acpi, alsa, pcmcia, usb, netfilter, no ipv6, preemptible kernel). Applied patch as seen on LKML (see here) for vfsmount.
Happy testing!

People are noting that NASA's program was created using genetic algorithms, but there is nothing preventing the use a data table to store the genetically evolving data. In fact, that might be a much better host because the evolving data is located in a single section of data.

Anyways, the table lookup is NOT necessarily faster than huge switch statement. The table lookup requires the data table to be loaded. If the table is large and has poor reference locality, then your program could end up thrashing the processor cache. The switch statement(s), however, can compute the jumps without loading stuff from the data segment (and flooding the processor cache).

And Linus Torvalds seems to agree with me: http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0304 .3/1367.html


>
> gcc 3.4 will have a __builtin_ctz function which can be used for this.
> It will emit special instructions on CPUs that support it (i386, Alpha
> EV67), and use a lookup table on others, which is very boring, but
> also faster.

Classic mistake. Lookup tables are only faster in benchmarks, they are
almost always slower in real life. You only need to miss in the cache
_once_ on the lookup to lose all the time you won on the previous one
hundred calls.

"Small and simple" is almost always better than the alternatives. I
suspect that's one reason why older versions of gcc often generate code
that actually runs faster than newer versions: the newer versions _look_
like they do a better job, but..

Linus

Another problem I have with C++ is that even with all its power you have no way to get to the "left hand" variable of operations. For example, if you have a matrix class you can overload the "+" operator so that you can do things like "matrix3 = matrix1 + matrix2". However, that's not going to be very efficient (assuming that's why you're using C++ in the first place) because there is no way to get to the matrix3 variable from inside the + operator. That forces you to use a temporary variable to add the two matrices then copy by value the whole matrix after adding matrix1 and matrix2. There are tricks around this problem but none are clean.

You might want to check out expression templates. This is an advanced technique that addresses exactly your problem. With this technique, you can do stuff like this:

A = B + C - D * E / J;

... and this will get translated to:

for (i = 0; ...) {
for (j = 0; ...) {
A[i,j] = B[i,j] + C[i,j] - D[i,j] * E[i,j] / J[i,j];
}
}

The Blitz++ library is the foremost library that uses expression templates. Check it out! There are ways around C++'s shortcomings...

I haven't played with FORTRAN recently myself but there are figures and discussion published by Todd Veldhuizen that are certainly a lot more recent than '90.

There is a patched, compiled and lilo'ed 2.4.20 waiting, prepared in case this runtime fix crashed the kernel. It didn't, so we're still 2.4.18 and next time we reboot we'll be at 2.4.20.

In the meantime, the box is behind two layers of NAT and handles only internal requests which internact with a database server hosting a several-hundred gigabyte database. The lab is generally full and users use the http server on this machine to access the database server, then print and/or save their results in small personal (not login/shell, purely storage) areas.

Has anyone, besides SCO, looked at the Linux code and tried to determine what might have come from SCO, and what might have come from a common predecessor?

So far four components of the Linux source have been implicated: SMP, RCU, NUMA, and JFS.

I have done a little digging into the NUMA code. IBM has contributed several people who have participlated in developing NUMA under linux. Some names I've run across: Martin Bligh, Matthew Dobson, Patricia Gaughen, John Stultz, Michael Hohnbaum. IBM even has a Linux NUMA news archive. It appears that IBM jumpstarted it's NUMA efforts when it purchased Sequent which was intitally intended to boost its participation in Project Monterey, which is no doubt the origin of SCO's objections.

The most obvious source file for NUMA is /usr/src/linux/mm/numa.c in the 2.4 series kernels. This file contains a comment header stating it was "Written by Kanoj Sarcar, SGI, Aug 1999". This file has been removed from later 2.5 kernels (its gone by at least 2.5.46), appearently because Linux accepted an IBM NUMA patch as reported here. This patch was announced by Martin Bligh and is likely the code in question in this lawsuit.

remember this comment from linus about the (not accepting kernel patches for ) scheduler:

from kernel achive"

"The scheduler is about 100 lines
out of however-many-million (3.8 at least count), and doesn't even impact most normal performace very much. " ...
"Let's face it - the current scheduler has the same old basic structure that it did almost 10 years ago, and yes, it's not optimal, but there
really aren't that many real-world loads where people really care. I'm sorry, but it's true. "

Basically he is saying "the scheduler never
changed." This is before the O(1) change.

elsewere he wrote:
I wrote what is _still_ largely the algorithm in 1991, and it's damn near the only piece of code from back then that even _has_ some similarity to the original code still

Maybe SCO is saying again that it is interesting. That is basically their claim. They say they own (something) about unix, and the scheduler is something very generic about linux.

Note that after this post the O(1) scheduler was implemented so ther are big changes in 2.5 and and later 2.4 kernels.

In any case, it could be that we're finally on to something here.

The FAST website points to "FAST vs Linux TCP" performance comparisons as a demonstration of their success. Linux's TCP/IP code is completely different from BSD's, right? (In the past, the Linux stack was reported to be "dead-slow" in some conditions, hopefully this has been fixed)

Do you think they'd have achieved less impressive results if comparing against FreeBSD TCP speeds? Or would you happen to have data comparing FreeBSD (using inflight_enable) to typical Linux performance?

You're right; "Linux is a copy of Unix..."

It looks like SCO might have stolen code from Linux, according to this post on the linux kernel mailing list

"Linux is a copy of UNIX. There is very little new stuff in Linux." Linux kernel forum

Stallman didn't say that. He quoted Larry McVoy who said that.

"I consider the law prohibiting the sharing of copies with your friend the moral equivalent of Jim Crow. It does not deserve respect." Richard Stallman, Free as in Freedom, Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software: O'Reilly (2002) at p. 72

That quote was taken completely out of context. What Stallman actually said was:

"I'm looking beyond what the existing laws are to what they should be...I'm not trying to draft legislation. I'm thinking about what should the law do? I consider the law prohibiting the sharing of copies with your friend the moral equivalent of Jim Crow. It does not deserve respect."

In the interest of brevity, even that's not in complete context. Stallman is basically saying if you were to thinking about what the law should be, and someone proposed the current copyright law, the current law would not merit much thought.

The final Stallman quote,

"The whole GNU project is really one big hack. It's one big act of subversive playful cleverness..." Richard Stallman, Revolution OS (DVD)

sounds like meaningless babble. I don't know what the heck that's supposed to mean. Maybe if SCO put it in context it would make more sense.

Bruce Perens

"This is becoming a tradition. I go there and break the law every year in the name of free speech." Bruce Perens, explaining his plan to demonstrate how to modify DVD technology to attendees of an Open Source convention.

In a show of civil disobedience, Bruce was planning to circumvent the region controls on a DVD player. He was planning to get arrested so he could put the DMCA on trial. His employer, Hewlett Packard, was afraid that they could be held liable for his demonstration, so they asked him not to do it. In the end, Perens cancelled the demonstration since it would defeat his whole purpose of HP was sued.

"We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor." Bruce Perens, mpulse magazine, December 2001.

From the magazine interview:

What does the open source mean to development of devices within the mobile Internet?

We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor. UNIX was invented by the phone company and it was very streaming-oriented. No one used the word 'streaming' in 1970, but if you look at the way UNIX works, it's all pipes and filters, and that's streaming.

It's a very good operating system for telecom, and branches out to streaming media and sending video, etcetera, where these things will happen over third generation wireless. Linux fits there very well.

So Perens was referring to the original AT&T UNIX and its stream-oriented foundation. What SCO fails to mention is that they do not have a claim against Linux based on the original AT&T code base. As Eric Raymond pointed out so well in the position paper, AT&T attempted to enforce their intellectual property rights, but ended up settling out of court by paying the defendant's legal fees.

"Linux is a copy of UNIX. There is very little new stuff in Linux." Linux kernel forum

Stallman didn't say that. He quoted Larry McVoy who said that.

"I consider the law prohibiting the sharing of copies with your friend the moral equivalent of Jim Crow. It does not deserve respect." Richard Stallman, Free as in Freedom, Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software: O'Reilly (2002) at p. 72

That quote was taken completely out of context. What Stallman actually said was:

"I'm looking beyond what the existing laws are to what they should be...I'm not trying to draft legislation. I'm thinking about what should the law do? I consider the law prohibiting the sharing of copies with your friend the moral equivalent of Jim Crow. It does not deserve respect."

In the interest of brevity, even that's not in complete context. Stallman is basically saying if you were to thinking about what the law should be, and someone proposed the current copyright law, the current law would not merit much thought.

The final Stallman quote,

"The whole GNU project is really one big hack. It's one big act of subversive playful cleverness..." Richard Stallman, Revolution OS (DVD)

sounds like meaningless babble. I don't know what the heck that's supposed to mean. Maybe if SCO put it in context it would make more sense.

Bruce Perens

"This is becoming a tradition. I go there and break the law every year in the name of free speech." Bruce Perens, explaining his plan to demonstrate how to modify DVD technology to attendees of an Open Source convention.

In a show of civil disobedience, Bruce was planning to circumvent the region controls on a DVD player. He was planning to get arrested so he could put the DMCA on trial. His employer, Hewlett Packard, was afraid that they could be held liable for his demonstration, so they asked him not to do it. In the end, Perens cancelled the demonstration since it would defeat his whole purpose of HP was sued.

"We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor." Bruce Perens, mpulse magazine, December 2001.

From the magazine interview:

What does the open source mean to development of devices within the mobile Internet?

We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor. UNIX was invented by the phone company and it was very streaming-oriented. No one used the word 'streaming' in 1970, but if you look at the way UNIX works, it's all pipes and filters, and that's streaming.

It's a very good operating system for telecom, and branches out to streaming media and sending video, etcetera, where these things will happen over third generation wireless. Linux fits there very well.

So Perens was referring to the original AT&T UNIX and its stream-oriented foundation. What SCO fails to mention is that they do not have a claim against Linux based on the original AT&T code base. As Eric Raymond pointed out so well in the position paper, AT&T attempted to enforce their intellectual property rights, but ended up settling out of court by paying the defendant's legal fees.

According to the mailinglist archives it was Larry McVoy who made that statement. Richard just replied to that message. And fixed the statement to read GNU/Linux :)

Argh. Wrong link - McVoy's mail is here.

No, he says Linux is the kernel, GNU/Linux is the complete system.

That said, they're not quoting Stallman here, but Larry McVoy, who in turn was quoted by Stallman (who used an indentation rather than a quote mark, for some reason).

No, he says Linux is the kernel, GNU/Linux is the complete system.

That said, they're not quoting Stallman here, but Larry McVoy, who in turn was quoted by Stallman (who used an indentation rather than a quote mark, for some reason).

This is a bad situation getting worse. The problems created by the US patent system being extending to Europe increases the risk of open source being gradually left behind, as new and important ideas are patented throughout most of the western world.

Don't hope for companies to do the "right thing" -- remember they have a moral obligation to their shareholders to develop every possible asset. Free software can only survive if prolonged, exclusive access to critical ideas simply isn't on offer.

As already stated on LKML here, it's far more likely that they saw something that had been stolen from Linux or other GNU code in SCO, and thought is was the other way around.

It also isn't clear if SCO is referring specifically to Redhat userland, redhat kernel patches or what. It's only clear that they don't mean specifically the Linux kernal as found on kernel.org.

-If you wish to make a complaint, press 1. If you wish to wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are, press -- what else? -- the star key.

A quick comment on the toss-away statement in the article that 2.4.20 supports 7505 based systems out of the box.

Be Careful(TM).

The AGP3 stuff requires a patch to stock Marcello/Linus kernels for the 7505 chipset.

I had trouble getting an AGP4x card to work on a Supermicro X5DAL-G board (baby brother to the reviewed X5DA8 board; but at ATX size instead of EATX and able to support unregistered memory) without applying this patch. Once patched, it works fine.

I'm not sure if 7505 support has made it into Marcello's 2.4.21preX series yet, but 7505 support does seem to be in 2.5.6x series (which I'm having trouble getting to boot for unknown reasons).

YMMV.

For that reason I wouldn't dare attempt it while there are two options that trade just a little of that sense of immediacy for a more digestable format.

The famous Kernel Traffic by Zack Brown.

Web Archive of kernel mailing list.

The biggest problem is that none of the primary routers support it.

Sources please!

*cough* two core routers dual-stacked where I work, one scheduled for next wednesday, the rest to follow in the weeks following. Abilene supports IPv6 natively. CA*net supports IPv6 natively. SURFnet supports IPv6 natively. IPv6 traffic exchanged at LINX and AMSIX. NTT Europe launched commercial IPv6 service in Europe on 19th February.

Btw. Any chance you could ask your ISP for IPv6 connectivity? From your post it sounds like they could do with some customer demand. :)

Boy you are a fucking idiot. First, you can't spell worth shit. Second, have you even looked at the patch code? All it does is add a layer before the existing kernel_thread() function where a lock check is performed. The fix could easily fit in 15 lines of code. Third, then use another fucking mirror. Fourth, see Mandrake, Lycoris, or Lindows for the patch depending on which distro you purchased with your PC. Fifth, shut the fuck up, like M$ sends out emails to the world when a bug in it's crap is discovered. Sixth, Walmart does stock good Linux games here and here. Seventh, now go back to surfing pr0n and whacking off.

You can see the message here or download the patch linked from this email here

Personally I think I'm going to wait for a proper version of the kernel to come out, (and hope it does).

Anyway, another copy of the patch.

- Sam

Is here

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Andrew, if you drop this patch, your X desktop usability drops?
>
> hm, you're right. It's still really bad. I forgot that I was using distcc.
>
> And I also forgot that tbench starves everything else only on CONFIG_SMP=n.
> That problem remains with us as well.

Andrew, I always thought that the scheduler interactivity was bogus, since
it didn't give any bonus to processes that _help_ interactive users
(notably the X server, but it could be other things).

To fix that, some people nice up their X servers, which has its own set of
problems.

How about something more like this (yeah, untested, but you get the idea):
the person who wakes up an interactive task gets the interactivity bonus
if the interactive task is already maxed out. I dunno how well this plays
with the X server, but assuming most clients use UNIX domain sockets, the
wake-ups _should_ be synchronous, so it should work well to say "waker
gets bonus".

This should result in:

- if X ends up using all of its time to handle clients, obviously X will
not count as interactive on its own. HOWEVER, if an xterm or something
gets an X event, the fact that the xterm has been idle means that _it_
gets a interactivity boost at wakeup.

- after a few such boosts (or assuming lots of idleness of xterm), the
process that caused the wakeup (ie the X server) will get the
"extraneous interactivity".

This all depends on whether the unix domain socket code runs in bottom
half or process context. If it runs in bottom half context we're screwed,
I haven't checked.

Does this make any difference for you? I don't know what your load test
is, and considering that my regular desktop has 4 fast CPU's I doubt I can
see the effect very clearly anyway ("Awww, poor Linus!")

NOTE! This doesn't help a "chain" of interactive helpers. It could be
extended to that, by just allowing the waker to "steal" interactivity
points from a sleeping process, but then we'd need to start being careful
about fairness and in particular we'd have to disallow this for signal
handling.

Linus

----
===== kernel/sched.c 1.161 vs edited =====
--- 1.161/kernel/sched.c Thu Feb 20 20:33:52 2003
+++ edited/kernel/sched.c Wed Mar 5 19:09:45 2003
@@ -337,8 +337,15 @@
* boost gets as well.
*/
p->sleep_avg += sleep_time;
- if (p->sleep_avg > MAX_SLEEP_AVG)
+ if (p->sleep_avg > MAX_SLEEP_AVG) {
+ int ticks = p->sleep_avg - MAX_SLEEP_AVG + current->sleep_avg;
p->sleep_avg = MAX_SLEEP_AVG;
+ if (ticks > MAX_SLEEP_AVG)
+ ticks = MAX_SLEEP_AVG;
+ if (!in_interrupt())
+ current->sleep_avg = ticks;
+ }
+
p->prio = effective_prio(p);
}
enqueue_task(p, array);

The routers for the I2 backbone in the US are managed by the Abilene NOC at IUPUI. I went to a meeting about a year ago where they talked about setting up the Indiana GigaPOP and replacing all of the routers with Juniper T640s.

The Indiana University School of Medicine was hit recently. Not just social security numbers, but medical records, too--everything you need to know to become someone else. All these poor folks were patients of their sleep clinic. I guess they have something else to keep them awake all night now...

This makes me remember this post on linux-kernel where Milan Roubal ask for help with breaking the 10 IDE devices "barrier":

ide9 at 0x5068-0x506f,0x5062 on irq 12
ide: at 0x6020-0x6027,0x6016 on irq 12
ide; at 0x6018-0x601f,0x6012 on irq 12
so ":" and ";" isn't ideal, hdparm dislikes my devices hdx and so on. Now I would like to try more than 20 ide devices in one computer and I would like to hear about any system solution of this real problem to me.

(emphasis added)

For my projects (particle physics etc) I generally use C++ these days (farewell fortran) because of the usefulness of templates. Recently I had to use some largish matrices (1000x1000 and growing - need more memory!) for a lattice calculation and found The Matrix Template Library to be most useful for my sparse matrices - and with an easy (well, easy for someone who knows STL) interface which allowed me to add a tensor product method - nice! The beauty of MTL is that it's just a series of header files - amazing! Then for data analysis I use ROOT an object oriented data analysis framework - it does histogram plotting / fitting etc... but is much more than a simple potting tool - you can build a cross platform GUI with it if you like, but the documentation is not the best. I've also used Octave for some FFT stuff too. It's like the unix philosophy really, use the right tools for the right job and use them together.

RTA. Linus says:

a rather dense encoding, which means that you win on icache. It's a bit hard to decode, but who cares? Existing chips do well at decoding, and thanks to the icache win they tend to perform better - and they load faster too

Smaller opcodes save space in all levels of storage: network, disk, RAM, and cache. And most importantly, they speed up the movment of code between RAM and the CPU's instruction cache, which makes everything go faster.

I'm afraid he did already, brrr
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0302 .2/1909.html

While posted on The Inquirer, this was not an interview, it was sourced from a discussion on the Linux Kernel mailing list. See Here

Regards

RDK

This is from the Linux-Kernel mailing list, not an Inquirer interview. Here is the post.

The first link that returns is an old kernel patch, specifically for enabling the L2 cache on a Celeron, although with "powerleap", whatever that is. That is something to try though, just make sure you have a backup kernel to boot from.

Also, there was a post to lkml with a similar question here without a solution.

If you don't find a solution, the best place to post isn't slashdot but to LKML.

Please read the store first, and please understand the issues before posting. Linus's stance is actually very openminded