From: "Geo." 

Wouldn't tweaks like the ones mentioned be kernel tweaks? If that is
available with these systems then wouldn't it be considered distributed
code and so require release of the source code?

Geo.

"Jeff Shultz"  wrote in message
news:3e320a93{at}w3.nls.net...
> There is nothing wrong with writing anything proprietary for Linux.
> Interestingly, the first UltraSparc I played with was a Fujitsu. I think.
> It wasn't a Sun box.
>
> Geo. wrote:
>
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29007.html
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Building big iron is relatively easy for Fujitsu, and Intel knows how to
> > make chips to plug into servers. A lot of the effort these two will be
> > putting into the future machines is making Linux scale. SGI, which
> > announced a 64-way Linux supercomputer a few weeks ago, put a lot of
work
> > into extending Linux and making it work efficiently on its shared
memory,
> > parallel machines. While Red Hat Linux will run out of the box on the
> > 64-way SGI Altix 3000 machines, if you want it to run really well, you
> > have to buy all the rejiggered Linux code that SGI has created and which
> > is not being put back into the open source community by SGI. It is hard
> > to believe that Fujitsu and Intel, having done work that differentiates
> > the Fujitsu and Siemens platforms running Linux, are going to put that
> > work back into the Linux community. Dracott says that while no decisions
> > about IP have been made, a model that is similar to SGI's way of doing
> > things is likely. Moreover, it is hard to imagine that IBM, HP, or Dell,
> > if it ever delivers a 32-way or larger server, will behave much
> > differently.
> >
> > [...]
>
> --
> Jeff Shultz
> I don't speak for anyone, and only One speaks for me.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4