From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 30 19: 3:41 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EFAB37B400 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from peter3.wemm.org ([12.232.27.13]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020131030329.MHUA10199.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@peter3.wemm.org> for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 03:03:29 +0000 Received: from overcee.wemm.org (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by peter3.wemm.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g0V33Ts53104 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:03:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E01C3A9A; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:03:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Garance A Drosihn , Alfred Perlstein , Poul-Henning Kamp , Jordan Hubbard , Dallas De Atley , arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: __P macro question In-Reply-To: <3C58A07A.49792083@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:03:29 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20020131030329.2E01C3A9A@overcee.wemm.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Terry Lambert wrote: > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > > For example, taking the TCP/IP stack by itself, with all > > > the DOS attack hardening and other hardenening, and using > > > it in a system other than FreeBSD. > > > > I'm afraid that even in that area, the changes and differences between > > the original Net/[123] code and the -CURRENT trees of BSDs are far > > more than a simple __P() change. One who has to maintain the changes > > done already in other parts and subsystems of the kernel that the TCP > > stack changes depend on, has a lot more work to do. > > > > I somehow fail to see the point of all this... > > The point is that if I were wanting to use a freely > available reference implementation of TCP/IP, right > now I would prefer to use FreeBSDs implementation, so > long as it remains portable to my platform. Well, our network stack is nowhere near K&R compliant, not by a million miles. So forget that line of the argument. > One of the *points* to using Open Source code at all > is to reduce your maintenance burden and bootstrap > overhead. Ahh you see, that is a problem. The FreeBSD project's purpose is to make a viable free operating system, not to bend over backwards to make it convenient for other vendors who want to take our code and run it on a cpu from 1974 with a compiler from 1973. We the project have no such obligations. *If* our code is useful, then go for your life. If not, then too bad. We have no obligation to *support* some arbitary fictitious vendor who is so damn cheap that they want to save 3 seconds of engineer time to run unprotoize on components of our source tree. > While it is valid to state that there is other work to > do, that other work is unavoidable. We are talking > about increasing the avoidable work here. If you add up the number of developer hours that have been wasted over the last 8 to 10 years on this subject and reapply it to kernel development, we'd have *finished* SMPng by now. As far as I'm concerned: Kill it, get it over with, and rid ourselves of the ongoing drain of developer time that you seem to enjoy contributing to. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message