Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 12:41:52 +0000 () From: Marc Rassbach <marc@tandem.milestonerdl.com> To: ark@eltex.ru Cc: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, ark@eltex.ru, oppermann@pipeline.ch, easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu, kev@lab321.ru, mike@smith.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, ipfilter@postbox.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Packet/traffic shapper ? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.980921123755.4810C-100000@tandem.milestonerdl.com> In-Reply-To: <199809211141.PAA00299@paranoid.eltex.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 ark@eltex.ru wrote: > It is the fact it is not flexible enough that disturbs me. > I definitely do not like the idea of patching every interface driver. Instead of handwaving and trashing about saying its ugly/no its not, then why not take the code, re-write it, and re-submit it? IPFW at one time was considered ugly and such. IP-FILTER was considered the way to go. Now, for FreeBSD, IPFW works JUST fine. So, if you don't like what ALTQ looks like, re-write it. Submit your changes to the maintainer. Who knows...in 2 years YOUR version of ALTQ will be standard. But standing about saying it ugly isn't going to accomplish much, now is it? (We now return you to your reg. programming) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.980921123755.4810C-100000>