Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:24:04 -0800 From: Steve Sizemore <steve@ls.berkeley.edu> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Re: NFS -current Message-ID: <20030327172404.GE64316@math.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <3E82B1B8.65D4375B@mindspring.com> References: <200303260034.aa92057@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> <3E81160B.E5406C60@mindspring.com> <20030326035938.GF1713@dan.emsphone.com> <3E816243.AED1CB4F@mindspring.com> <20030327070317.GA19434@math.berkeley.edu> <3E82B1B8.65D4375B@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 12:09:28AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Steve Sizemore wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 12:18:11AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > In fact, the only legitimate argument I have ever heard for UDP
> > > has been "I have an old Linux install that can't talk TCP, as
> > > only UDP was implemented at the time I installed it".
> >
> > Have you already forgotten the locking problem that you were
> > helping me with last week? The only solution was to use UDP.
>
> Working around a screwed up implementation is not a "legitimate"
> argument. The only legitimate argument to that is "unscrewing"
> the implementation.
>
> 8-).
I agree with that to a degree - at least from the perspective of a
developer. (If I had the knowledge and time to unscrew the
implementation, I would certainly try.) However, for those who are
primarily sysadmins and FreeBSD advocates, using UDP is a legitimate
alternative to switching to linux.
Steve
--
Steve Sizemore <steve@ls.berkeley.edu>, (510) 642-8570
Unix System Manager
Dept. of Mathematics and College of Letters and Science
University of California, Berkeley
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030327172404.GE64316>