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?
You don't get it, do you ? There's no "better OSPF and BGP" on false premises, like a flawed platform. Go on, tell people to run OSPF on Windows 7, and see linux weenies cringe. See my point ? (again, troll. don't bother to read except for entertainment values)
