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 s
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
Mark Murray wrote:
> > How long can this remain unfixed before the code is diked out,
> > and the checksum is recalculated fully, instead?
>
> Terry, you sound rather foolish when you argue like this. This
> is semantic tomfoolery and off topic. End of thread.
This is not a argument over mere imp
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 would
"> 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 s
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
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 1
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 happene
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
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
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.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body
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"?
Hop
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 que
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
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 w
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
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.
O
>
> 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 ap
* 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 th
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 tri
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 avai
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
> 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 be
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 Unsubsc
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
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 wo
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
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 97
* 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 l
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."
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/product
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."
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1835/pr
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, 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?
netns could be safely moved to Attic. I'm receive enough IPX
related questions, and never got
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 po
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 triv
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> I have at least 1 VPN setup that requires full IPX support.
Yep, but keep in mind that netipx is different to netns. netipx actually
works and is actually useful.
> On Tuesday 04 March 2003 15:32, Chris Fowler wrote:
> > What is IPX currently being used for? Legacy sy
Julian Elischer wrote:
> I thought nwfs used it?
Nope. But actually looking at the code would have told you that.
Remember, we're talking about the Xerox networking suite here. It's not
like its a widely deployed protocol or something important.
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Tim Robbins 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. Will that make you
> guys
I have at least 1 VPN setup that requires full IPX support.
On Tuesday 04 March 2003 15:32, Chris Fowler wrote:
> What is IPX currently being used for? Legacy systems?
>
> I've been stuck in TCP/IP land for many years now. Have been lucky
> enough to not run into any IPX.
>
> On Tue, 2003-03-04
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:35:51PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Things being removed constantly.
>
> If you will remember, there has been a rocky history with the
> removal of functionality in FreeBSD. If you don't remember,
> I will be happy to remind you of specific incidents that ended
> up
* 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?
>
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 "unsu
* 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
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 ... ]
What is IPX currently being used for? Legacy systems?
I've been stuck in TCP/IP land for many years now. Have been lucky
enough to not run into any IPX.
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 18:26, Tim Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> > I thought nwfs us
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I thought nwfs used it?
nwfs uses netipx. From what I can tell, netipx was based on netns.
Tim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Julian Elischer (Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800) wrote:
> I thought nwfs used it?
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, 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
I thought nwfs used it?
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, 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?
>
>
> Tim
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsub
Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:56:27AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Is there a compelling reason for doing this, other than "I
> > want to make some API/locking change, but I don't want to
> > have to keep this code working at the same time"? Maximizing
>
> Is there a compelli
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Vincent Jardin wrote:
> Why does it need to be removed ? According to me, it would be the same mistake
> as the removal of netiso and netccitt. I did not know FreeBSD at this time,
> but nowadays, in order to get an OS that supports many stacks, we have to use
> NetBSD.
If ne
"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vincent Jardin writes:
>
> >Why does it need to be removed ? According to me, it would be the same mista
ke
> >as the removal of netiso and netccitt. I did not know FreeBSD at this time,
> >but nowadays, in order to get an OS that
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
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: warn
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vincent Jardin writes:
>Why does it need to be removed ? According to me, it would be the same mistake
>as the removal of netiso and netccitt. I did not know FreeBSD at this time,
>but nowadays, in order to get an OS that supports many stacks, we have to use
>Net
Why does it need to be removed ? According to me, it would be the same mistake
as the removal of netiso and netccitt. I did not know FreeBSD at this time,
but nowadays, in order to get an OS that supports many stacks, we have to use
NetBSD.
BSD4.4 was designed in order to support many stacks, F
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:56:27AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> 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
> >
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/G
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 attic while
> you ar
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 attic while
you are at it. It can serve it's purpose from there, too.
Is
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?
Tim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
60 matches
Mail list logo
