From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 1 2:35:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net (robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738A337B412 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 02:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mindspring.com (dialup-209.247.136.133.Dial1.SanJose1.Level3.net [209.247.136.133]) by robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net (8.11.5/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f919XMT29596; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 02:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3BB83892.E0FAA8CE@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 02:34:10 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Bart Kus , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sio modification References: <14025.1001918319@critter> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Submissions should contain a -current version or they are likely > to never make it into the tree... I guess this is why the Rice University code that more than triples the TCP connection rate never made it in the first time they released it for 2.2 and then again when they released the updated version with resource containers for version 4.2 (though the license on the second version was not happy). I guess that's also why Luigi Rizzo's SACK and TSACK code for 2.x was never integrated. And the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center code for the syn cache, which is vastly superior to the code in NetBSD and BSDI... And the MIT code for the TIME_WAIT zombies... It's a great pity that most MA and PhD thesis and real world products have hard deadlines that can't wait for -current to become stable enough to use in a product sold to people, and which the company shipping it must support when it has problems, but it's understandable why companies and people tend to do their development there instead of -current. If I were doing a new product, I'd pick 4.4, I think, since the KSE work and ACPI code has destabilized -current; it doesn't help, either, that the 5.0 release date was pushed back another year. This is not trying to lay blame; it's just pointing out that most funded work is going to take place in a -stable branch, since FreeBSD is being used a a platform for other work, and is not the ends in and of itself (the ends are graduation with a degree, or making money on a FreeBSD based product). Going to P4 would help that a little, but not as much as it would if P4 were free for commercial use; and yes, I understand their need to make money as well: I'm just pointing out that it's largely a tools problem. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message