Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:35:42 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au> To: "Leif Neland" <leifn@neland.dk> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: Why not a default number of pings? Message-ID: <200001180435.OAA22409@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> In-Reply-To: <01dd01bf6145$e13d6c80$0e00a8c0@neland.dk> from "Leif Neland" at "Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:51:26 %2B0100" References: <01dd01bf6145$e13d6c80$0e00a8c0@neland.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 18th January 2000, "Leif Neland" wrote: >I've been hit by a "forgotten ping" again. > >I still do not see a reason for not having a default number of pings, instead >of infinite. The only reason I've seen is "It's always been so". I find this argument rather odd. Train yourself to not forget your running ping. If you forget ping, then you probably forget to log out, forget to back up your machine, or forget your car keys. It's not ping's fault. >Even if a default of 4 pings is not acceptable, because windows does it that >way, why not a large default then? A large but finite default is a surprise to seasoned users. That's bad. A small default is also a surprise, but you get the surprise quickly. >If somebody _really_ want to ping forever, let them use -t0, and defend the >rest of us from our blunders of forgetting a ping, keeping the line open >infinitely. alias ping='ping -c4' What's so hard about this? Why break ping for the rest of us when you have total control of your own circumstances? >How about a MAX_PING=3600 in make.conf or so? Unnecessary cruft. We have plenty of cruft already, and don't need any more. Stephen. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001180435.OAA22409>