On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
more or less just as obsolete, as is 486 support, as is the F00F
bug workaround, as is ... a lot of code that's still there.
Three of my machines have the F00F bug; my firewall, my print
Hi,
Here's a hint:
The Apollo Domain and XNS networking protocols will no longer be offered
after Cisco IOS Release 12.2. Information about these protocols will not
appear in future releases of the Cisco IOS software documentation set.
Bob Bishop wrote:
Here's a hint:
The Apollo Domain and XNS networking protocols will no longer be offered
after Cisco IOS Release 12.2. Information about these protocols will not
appear in future releases of the Cisco IOS software documentation set.
* De: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-05 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out,
if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
more or less just as obsolete
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that the current TCP/IP stack no longer matches the Stevens
books, and given that Stevens is too dead to update the books to
the new FreeBSD stack, even if he wanted to, it's useful to have
a relatively simple set of code that can be understood without
Terry Lambert (Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 04:15:11AM -0800) wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
The details might be different but not
enough to confuse a competent programmer.
Same argument, in favor of the netns code.
It's a moot point anyway, I just fixed netns.
Sorry to but in, but I don't see why
if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
more or less just as obsolete, as is 486 support, as is the F00F
bug workaround, as is ... a lot of code that's still there.
That's just being silly. ISA support is still very much a requirement.
Laptops usually have ISA stuff
Hiten Pandya wrote:
Sorry to but in, but I don't see why this so called bikesheed keeps
getting bigger and bigger. The outcome is simple. If your patches
function properly, then there is no need to remove netns provided you
don't mind maintaining it. If it doesn't have a maintainer, then
Terry Lambert writes:
Mark Murray wrote:
Only if it kills this _really_ dumb debate. In time, it will no longer
compile, and then the situation will be the same as just punting to the
Attic without the fix.
Only if some idiot breaks the API contract again.
Whatever happened to you
Terry Lambert writes:
Let' start wth the libalias/natd incremental checksum update code;
the code is based on RFC1141, instead of RFC1624. As a result,
it get updated incorrectly occasionally, because it's using two's
complement instead of one's complement math. Per RFC1642:
RFC 1141
Hi
At 08:53 5/3/03, Terry Lambert wrote:
[...]
The code is still useful as a simple implementation, much more
easily understood by the student than the current TCP/IP stack,
for certain.
The same is true for netipx (wc -l *.[ch] is almost identical).
--
Bob Bishop +44 (0)118
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
The code is still useful as a simple implementation, much more
easily understood by the student than the current TCP/IP stack,
for certain.
And it will still be available. It'll just be available in the Attic. The
fact that it will get more broken in
Juli Mallett wrote:
* De: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-05 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out,
if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
more or less
Doug Barton wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
The code is still useful as a simple implementation, much more
easily understood by the student than the current TCP/IP stack,
for certain.
And it will still be available. It'll just be available in the Attic. The
fact that it
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
If you want to make it about failure to attract a maintainer, then
do that.
Actually several people have made this argument, along with the corollary
failure to attract a userbase.
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
To Unsubscribe:
It took about 3 years for the updates to get out there so IPv6
was usable
i have yet to see a cisco ios image supporting ipv6 that was usable
in production environment. and i have tried hard.
but i will admit to not having seen apollo networking for over a
decade. but i probably have not
Doug Barton wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
If you want to make it about failure to attract a maintainer, then
do that.
Actually several people have made this argument, along with the corollary
failure to attract a userbase.
I would claim that non-working code *repelled*
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
The code is still useful as a simple implementation, much more
easily understood by the student than the current TCP/IP stack,
for certain.
And it will still be available. It'll
Terry Lambert writes:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
[ ... lots of trivial to fix
* De: Mark Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-05 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
Terry Lambert writes:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry
i have yet to see a cisco ios image supporting ipv6 that was usable
in production environment. and i have tried hard.
This is getting OT but on the subject of repelling users, they´re probably
trying hard to repel their users to the vendor J boxen.
but i will admit to not having seen apollo
Juli Mallett writes:
This crap is *s* trivial to fix, it's easier to fix than
to watch you guys bitch about it not being fixable.
Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix?
compile-only would be a good state to leave the code in the attic.
Only if it
Mark Murray wrote:
Terry Lambert writes:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
[ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ]
Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will
Terry Lambert writes:
Mark Murray wrote:
Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix?
Is tested a requirement fo code to be committed or to have it
stay in the tree?
Both.
Be careful of your answer, unless you are willing to remove all
code that does not meet that
Petri Helenius wrote:
seems to me that one useful question is whether the netns code
being there non-trivially complicates maintenance and/or
reliability of other code, and can i compile or module it out if
the bits it occupies really bothers me?
This is probably the right question.
Mark Murray wrote:
Only if it kills this _really_ dumb debate. In time, it will no longer
compile, and then the situation will be the same as just punting to the
Attic without the fix.
Only if some idiot breaks the API contract again.
Whatever happened to you broke it, you fix it?
Mark Murray wrote:
Terry Lambert writes:
Mark Murray wrote:
Will it be runnable (as in tested), rather than a compile-only fix?
Is tested a requirement fo code to be committed or to have it
stay in the tree?
Both.
Cool. Then I have a long list of things that can be fixed
or
De: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-05 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out,
if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
more or less just as obsolete
M. Warner Losh wrote:
ISA support is not obsolete. All new PCs still have ISA busses. They
might not have ISA Expansion Bus Slots, but they all[*] still connect
their serial ports, parallel ports, and mouse/keyboard ports via ISA.
Not to mention i8254 which gets to be major pain if ACPI
Mike Barcroft wrote:
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Robbins wrote:
Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
Attic?
Might as well move /sys/i386/conf/GENERIC to the
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Barcroft wrote:
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tim Robbins wrote:
Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
Attic?
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
In file included from ../../../netns/idp_usrreq.c:51:
../../../netns/ns_pcb.h:82:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Wemm writes:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
Could we possibly move Terry to the
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
[ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ]
Tell
* De: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-04 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you
guys happy?
Yes, as will anything else that cuts down on the metadiscussions and
increases the quality of the codebase.
mcl
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
* De: Mark Linimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2003-03-04 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you
guys happy?
Yes, as will anything else that cuts
Terry Lambert wrote:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
[ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ]
Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you
guys happy?
Terry Lambert wrote:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
[ ... lots of trivial to fix
Terry Lambert wrote:
Terry Lambert wrote:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
[ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ]
Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch.
40 matches
Mail list logo
