On 5/28/05, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 05:17:54AM -0700, Sukanta ganguly wrote: > > That's a pretty bold statement. Linux grew up to be > > popular via mass acceptance. Seems like that charter > > has changed and a few have control over Linux and its > > future. The "My way or the highway" philosophy has > > gotten embedded in the Linux way of life. > > Life is getting tough. > > You're totally missing the point. Linux is successfull exactly > because it's lookinf for the right solution, not something the > business people need short-term.
Such myopic cheerleading gets annoying and accomplishes nothing. The topic under discussion is whether a low level API for RDMA is necessary (as opposed to a higher level API such as kDAPL) and if so what the best strategy for achieving it is (try to plan an IB/iWARP merge immediately or wait until there is an iWARP code base). Claiming that an InfiniBand-specific interface is somehow thinking "long term" is just plain ludicrous. Now it may be that the short term interest of the InfiniBand vendors is such that they cannot commit resources to helping build a transport neutral API. That is always a legitimate tradeoff, but it is "short term corporate thinking". Last time I looked most of the commits being made to OpenIB (or sourceforge DAPL) were from being drawing paychecks from those "evil corporations". _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
