On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 04:12:40PM +0200, Ross Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Marc Espie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 05:50:58PM -0700, Barry Friedman wrote:
> > > Hi, thanks everyone for the information, this helps give me an idea of
> > > the scope and effort involved in getting OpenBGPd onto Linux. I'll
> > > look at the OpenSSH project to see how the portability is added
> > > without cluttering up the OpenBSD code.
> > >
> > > Also I am sorry, I did not mean to imply that OpenBGPd is not in a
> > > source control system or released frequently. I was referring to the
> > > quick and dirty Linux port I mentioned which is just in tarball form.
> > > Kudos to those who did that porting work because it allows Linux users
> > > to at least play around with OpenBGPd a bit but I was just trying to
> > > see if there was a more organized and source-controlled effort yet to
> > > work on OpenBGPd porting to non-BSD systems.
> >
> > I don't see the point in porting this to linux. Why settle for second-best
> > ?
>
> Uhm perhaps to provide a better OSPF and BGP implementation to the for an OS
> that is the OS of choice of millions of users and thousands of corporations?
Why would the OpenBSD developers be interested in that? Anyone who wants
to use it on Linux is free to port it, but the typical OpenBSD developer
isn't *that* interested in running stuff on Linux.
Joachim
