On Feb 18, 2008 1:16 AM, David Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 17, 2008 1:53 PM, Mayuresh Kathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and > > laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its > > basic level. > > But, it would have been *nicer* if Ted had put in some more of his > > time and effort to complete what he started. > > Also, we don't get to use his code for FREE, I suppose most of the > > users *buy* CD sets. > > It would also be nice if you would learn C and code up your new TCP/IP > stack yourself. We don't always get everything we want.
This is weird isn't it? If I had *wanted* to learn C wouldn't I have done it already? > His code is free to anyone that wants it for free. Do you not > understand how the BSD license and AnonCVS work? It gets stranger. How is a bare bones code ever going to be useful to a non developing user? Its useful to them only when its part of an overall system. And that overall system in a really usable state is only available via CDs which need to be purchased. I'm not saying that this purchase it if you want model is bad, I find it to be really good, that way the development keeps going on. > > > You are talking about nebulous features that are over hyped and > > > under proven. One needs a problem first before fixing it. You are > > > putting it the wrong way around by saying "hey I'd like a super duper > > > faster tcp/ip stack man!". Why? What problem are you solving? > > > > The problem that would get solved would be best presented by the > > following article http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/ > > What specifically about the OpenBSD TCP/IP stack is too slow for your > needs? Perhaps some simple sysctl tuning or using a different NIC > will fix what you mistakenly think is an inherent flaw. I never said its an inherent flaw, its just that its dated. Better to have something that is more in tune with what is needed in the current world scenario. > > > A frequent complaint is that we don't listen to our user base. That is > > > utterly false. We listen and we implement what we have time for and > > > what makes sense (chances are we have thought through the problem > > > domain; ever considered that?). A single person's need is irrelevant in > > > the grand scheme of things. If you need something you need to write it > > > yourself. > > > > Agreed, but wouldn't it be better if there was some kind-a list of > > features most requested by users who can't/don't code in C? > > Then you core people could keep an eye on that list and think through > > your problems keeping that detail in mind. > > This comes up once every few months. The general consensus is that > lists are a waste of time that's better spent coding. Posting such a > list implies that developers are actually interested in and/or > committing resources to implementing everything on it. > > > Nothing of that sort, I don't _expect_ developers to do what I ask > > for, in fact I've got very few needs above what the system is offering > > me right now, just that it hurts to see rest of the projects getting > > some nice features which we too would've got had the developers > > focused and *completed* what they started. > > If the system does what you need, why do you care about writing this > brand new TCP/IP stack then? Because I said, "I've got very few needs *above* what the system is offering me right now". ~Mayuresh
