Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 01:28:45 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG>, Tim Robbins <tjr@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version Message-ID: <3E65C34D.19E2D95C@mindspring.com> References: <3E6539B5.2F5D31B@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030305084442.037e9fa0@gid.co.uk> <3E65BB24.3E37D90D@mindspring.com> <20030305030708.A21014@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Juli Mallett wrote: > * De: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> [ 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, as is 486 support, as is the F00F > > bug workaround, as is ... a lot of code that's still there. > > I have a 486, lots of people have 486 PC 104 boards. I have a lot > of ISA stuff. VLSI support would be equally obsolete. So would > support for a Sequent SMP 386. We don't support them. We have at > least one feature you demonstate over and over needs moved to the > attic. I personally have two 4-port terminal servers that speak XNS. I'm pretty sure that others exist. The argument about "IPX is just as simple" is true. But it's not useful for educational purposes, because it collides with a protocol in common use; hacking it up isn't a good thing. The argument about Cisco's IOS not supporting it soon is irrelevent, until all the Cisco's on the net have their IOS image updated to the version that doesn't support it. It took about 3 years for the updates to get out there so IPv6 was usable, so we have at least 3 years. If you want to make this argument about "orphan code", then make it about "orphan code". If you want to make this argument about "reduced FreeBSD size", then make it about "reduced FreeBSD size". If you want to make it about "failure to attract a maintainer", then do that. I can give you reasoned arguments why all of these are wrong, using historical examples from previous major code changes in the FreeBSD source tree. And here we see the source of my previous cynicism: The truth is that you are proving that this was never about "the code does not even compile", and you are proving that this was never about "no one is willing to maintain the code". If you go ahead and dike the code out, in the future, don't be disingenuous about your motives in doing so, and pretend that they are based on legitimate maintenance concerns, when they aren't. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E65C34D.19E2D95C>