From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Sep 26 23:26:25 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790F537B423; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id XAA37915; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:26:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:26:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: FreeBSD Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE as dialup server w/ pppd 2.3.5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, FreeBSD wrote: > Quick questions: 1. Why is base still using pppd version 2.3.5? Seem > rather stale. I'm not bashing FreeBSD on this, I understand if I want > it updated I would do better sending in a patch. I'm just curious, > incase there might be a very valid reason why it's still at 2.3.5 > (ie., security reasons etc) Basically, no-one seems to use it much any more, or if any of the committers still do then theyre not motivated to update it. ppp(8) is arguably better in most ways, although it doesnt run in the kernel and so the latency may not be quite as deterministic. In reality however this is undetectable. Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message