On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Jan Wasserbauer wrote:
> I have to support Jens since I think nex-Ax25 support is much better (and
> what is done so far greatly proves that).
>
> Have in mind we're talking about Ax25 for 2.5/2.6 kernels .. (or patched
> 2.2/2.4 of course) so compatibility issues are not that important.
I wasn't talking about compatibility issues (which are important also of
course) or which implementation is better. I was talking about attitudes.
(Actually the new-ax25 stuff looks very nice, I do believe it's better in
many ways and I'm sad that I haven't had time to test it.)
> Some developers talk, some actually develop something .. :)
> (just my opinion about new-ax25 discussion ..
> don't take personaly (anyone))
Yeah, right. And some people think they know all the answers and never
need any advice/comments/suggestions/input.
What I would have liked to see is something like: "I think feature X in
the current implementation is somewhat suboptimal. I was thinking of
rewriting/reimplementing/modifying it by implementing feature Y. What do
you folks think? I'm going to start writing it now but am open to
suggestions." ...and then really be open to the suggestions. This was
_exactly_ what we saw when Matthias first started to write new-ax25!
Now all I see is: "the old stuff is crap, let's dump it."
> > The /proc reading stuff was somethign I hacked quickly together to support
> > node. I don't think anyone else uses it. Would you care to elaborate on
> > what exactly is so evil about that.
>
> Someone was asking here what is so conceptionally wrong about old-ax25
> .. so just one example ..
And I still don't see an explanation of exactly _what_ is conceptionally
wrong about that. Explain it and I'm happy. (If the explanation makes
sense that is.)
> > > I know that this will pose a lot of administrative problems. But I will
> > > not accept any performance-compatibility tradeoffs here, except perhaps
> > > the binary compatibility with the old socket interface.
> > >
> > > Comments?
> >
> > Good luck getting other developers interested in your (apprently personal)
> > crusade to save us from the evil of the old implementation.
>
> Oh .. should we do it like Win95 ? (DOS compatibility)
> Old implementation is working but that's just about all to tell about it.
> If new-implementation was only frame-collector and adaptive timers it
> would be better .. and new implementation is much more than that ..
BZZZT. Wrong answer! Again.
My point is that Jens doesn't seem to give a damn about what other people
think about this. Jens of course has the right to do what he want's but I
wouldn't that suprised if with the current attitude the stuff wouldn't
catch fire. And that would be a shame in my opinion.
Nobody wants DOS-like backwards compatibility. But the current approach
seems like sticking your head in a bush and hoping the real world goes
away. It won't. If all else fails Linus and Alan make sure it won't.
> And it does not allow users to set parametrs but after some years on PR I
> exactly understand why .. there are just too much people who have special
> ability to misconfigure anything ..
And this, my friend, is exactly what is so repulsive about FlexNet
thinking. If all Linux developers shared that notion, we would have a
reimplementation of Windows with all the plug'n'pray stuff and people at
Redmond knowing much better what we want. That kind of thinking just
doesn't fit into Linux!
But let's drop this FlexNet issue here and now. It won't be
productive. Apologies for getting caught by that flame bait...
--
Tomi Manninen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OH2BNS AX.25: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
KP20ME04 Amprnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
