From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Apr 14 16:14:56 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA22423
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA22418
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA06947; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: jbryant@tfs.net, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: question about X.25 drivers 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:40:40 PDT."
             <199704142040.NAA19292@phaeton.artisoft.com> 
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:13:54 -0700
Message-ID: <6943.861059634@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Again, the existing X.25 code did not change, FreeBSD did.  It is not
> the code which is unusable by FreeBSD, it is FreeBSD which i incapable
> of using the code.

Yeah, sure.  As usual, you fail to distinguish between the practical
realities and your idealized vision of How It Should Be(tm).  If
nobody actively maintains X.25 then it dies, period.  There are no
Code Police to ensure that anything that anyone does will not break
something in the farthest-flung corners of the system and there aren't
likely to be anytime soon.  Your point, as usual, is more or less
correct but fundamentally useless.  You must be a mathematician or
something. :-)

				Jordan