Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:12380 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3212 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!zombie.ncsc.mil!cs.umd.edu!ra.nrl.navy.mil!sundance!cmetz From: cmetz@sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Craig Metz) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Whats wrong with Linux networking ??? Date: 10 Aug 1994 11:14:31 GMT Organization: Information Technology Division, Naval Research Laboratory Lines: 61 Message-ID: <32acqn$ghb@ra.nrl.navy.mil> References: <325760$rc9@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <Cu8CBr.Fx@calcite.rhyolite.com> <RSANDERS.94Aug9003813@hrothgar.mindspring.com> <CuA6w1.5tF@calcite.rhyolite.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil In article <CuA6w1.5tF@calcite.rhyolite.com>, Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> wrote: >Changing the U.Guelph NFS code to use whatever Linux uses for networking >cannot be a fraction as much work as writing a new NFS implementation >unless the Linux networking is worse than anyone has so far claimed. Are you volunteering? Have you ever actually looked at the code? >There was an excuse for inception of Linux. Big-bad-nasty-mean-USL/AT&T >is obviously a sufficent reason for most of the kernel. Who says >otherwise? Well, Linus. But he's not important, right? >A form of dishonesty is self-delusion. I cannot imagine anyone with >enough knowledge to write a complete NFS implementation not knowing that >the U.Guelph implementation has become the de facto public domain >standard. Show me a version that runs on DOS machines, Linux machines, and all the crazy flavors of the UNIX, and I'll buy that. Until then, it sounds to me awfully like it's the de facto public domain standard for the various flavors of BSD. >That fitting BSD code into a Linux might be hard is a crazy excuse. I don't see you volunteering to do it. It's real easy to go around telling everyone else that they need to do something because they're wrong in your opinion and it's easy to do things the way that's right in your opinion. It's another matter entirely to do it. >It >makes just much sense as refusing to have an open() system call. Of >course a non-BSD kernel has different internal mechanisms, but one >expects a good clone (i.e. something strictly and unabigiously better >than the original) to have compatibility glue. Maybe (gasp!) Linux isn't a clone... >Unless Linux's only >reason for existence is to give people a chance to write kernel code >(which would be an entirely reasonable and sufficient reason for it to >exist until the clone is complete), limited compatibility with BSD and >System V drivers and protocol code should go without saying. Again, you seem to be forgetting that Linux was not built to be a ``clone'' or anything with an internal structure that resembles BSD. People keep telling you this, yet you insist on assuming that all the world looks just like BSD. >Yes, that means that every serious UNIX clone needs STREAMS support, at >least DLPI, despite the fact that System V STREAMS are a bad NIH clone >(eg. slow) of the BSD protocol switch and AT&T streams (non-shouting >streams). Well, then, I guess (big shocker here) Linux doesn't get your approval. Nor will it probably ever, with your criteria (read: must be BSD).