Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:12396 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3227 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!emory!cherry.atlanta.com!nntp.mindspring.com!usenet From: rsanders@mindspring.com (Robert Sanders) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Whats wrong with Linux networking ??? Date: 09 Aug 1994 04:38:12 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Lines: 41 Message-ID: <RSANDERS.94Aug9003813@hrothgar.mindspring.com> References: <Cu107E.Mz3@curia.ucc.ie> <31vo1b$87t@quagga.ru.ac.za> <325760$rc9@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <Cu8CBr.Fx@calcite.rhyolite.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hrothgar.mindspring.com In-reply-to: vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com's message of Mon, 8 Aug 1994 18:50:15 GMT On Mon, 8 Aug 1994 18:50:15 GMT, vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) said: > In article <325760$rc9@ra.nrl.navy.mil> > cmetz@sundance.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Craig Metz) writes: >> ... The Linux NFS implementation, the client side especially, is >> very bare-bones. Because of this, it couldn't hold a candle to the >> 4.4BSD NFS implementation. I expect, however, that someone will >> implement improvements from 4.4BSD. > For heavens sake, WHY!?! Okay, take a deep breath, simmer down, and read before you post. Whatever your credentials, you have a "more-correct-than-thou" attitude that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. > Rick M's Univ. of Guelph NFS implementation works fine, and is > freely redistributable, actively maintained, supports TCP as well as > UDP, is used in 4.4BSD, BSDI's BSD/386, and many other products, and > works with the freely available AMD. Except as a training excercise > or the result of a particularly bad case of Not-Invented-Here > syndrome, why would anyone want to write another NFS server? He said "the client side especially." Linux's NFS server isn't the bottleneck, the client is. That's what most needs work right now. As for a BSD NFS server, I'm not sure how easily it would fit into the Linux kernel (if it is indeed a kernel-level server) . If you're going to keep claiming NIH, at least restrain yourself to calling Linux's inception a result of NIH. Once you've accepted the fact that Linux is *not* BSD, you have to admit that things that were written for BSD don't necessarily fit well into Linux. There are good, logical reasons (given that first step) why Linux isn't just a large patch against BNR/2. That cuts both ways, by the way. Much of the driver support for the two free BSDs has duplicated work already available in Linux. Why haven't they just ported the Linux drivers? Or dosemu? Or the Linux /proc filesystem? Or the Linux SYSV IPC implementation? Or the Linux virtual console system? -- Robert