Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!zdc!zdc-e!szdc-e!news From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: TCP latency Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 00:45:10 -0500 Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine Lines: 69 Message-ID: <31EB2C66.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <31E7C0DD.41C67EA6@dyson.iquest.net> <4s8tcn$jsh@fido.asd.sgi.com> <31E80ACA.167EB0E7@dyson.iquest.net> <4sadde$qsv@linux.cs.Helsinki.FI> <31EA9FBC.41C67EA6@star-gate.com> <DuLzKz.Fsy@kroete2.freinet.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.networking:45371 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:4069 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23708 Erik Corry wrote: > > > : > > > : > >I think that was a kind-of cute situation. We decided NOT > : > >to special case the syscall that Larry uses for the > : > >null-syscall case. > : > > > I think what John wrote above can only be interpreted as a complaint > that Linux has a special case for the null syscall. > I followed up with a description of what the situation was. It was MY situation. It was not Linus's. Where is there an implication that it had anything to do with Linus, and why would I think that anything that has to do with Linus is 'cute'? I happen to think that the demon is 'cute', but not Linus :-). This thing has turned totally absurd. I see that it was an excuse to call me the worst thing that I can be called. > I certainly > interpreted it that way, so did Linus, and so did most people > reading the message. If nobody special-cased the null syscall, why > bring it up at all. > Rather than calling me a liar, he should have confronted me. I do publically apologize and make retractions, because my integrity is much more important than my ego. My worst fault in these threads is that I demand integrity from others, and am not compromizing. My response to Linus after his/your misinterpretation would not have even had to have been a retraction, but a clarification. The fault here is in the response to my statement, not my statement itself. It was not meant as a sly statement and IN NO WAY did I claim that Linux is doing anything specifically to make the benchmark only run quickly. I do believe that making the benchmark run quickly doesn't necessarily make the system run faster in the general case, given a choice between working on that and other things. Please reread my comment on "TCP latency (...lucid...)." I did go ballistic, and the LIAR statement was not called for. That is a complaint of last resort. If it was me, and you have seen my responses to comments like that, I would have made a very strong claim that no such 'trick' was done in my code, and asked what the motivation for the comment was. Judgement should only come after all of the facts are heard, especially if the judgement would include such a condemning statement as LIAR. I would suggest that the statement (the allusion that I made about what I thought about doing, and the thought that the effect of making it run faster would be about the same as faking it) had little integrity, and please give me some information to back up the claim. Calling me a LIAR eliminates my ability to discuss an issue, since there is no value in listening to a LIAR, other than hearing lies. I would answer precisely the same as what I said in the "TCP latency (...lucid...)" response. My statement is simply the truth. But, I guess since I am now a LIAR, you cannot believe me :-(. I guess that it isn't worth listening to my skepticism about benchmark claims and results also. I kind of see the reason for calling me a LIAR now... (See, this is my suspicous position, with much more evidence than my allusion to a thought that went through MY head, I did not claim that Linus even thought of it.) BTW, I found out where alot of confusion was coming in... There were TWO threads going on, and the TCP latency thread did not have the errant claims by Linus that I was complaining about :-(. John