From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri May 17 20:53:35 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA20475
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 20:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA20470
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 17 May 1996 20:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.7.5/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA12112; Fri, 17 May 1996 21:50:13 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <199605180350.VAA12112@rover.village.org>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Note from Usenet 
Cc: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 18 May 1996 11:50:41 +0930
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 21:50:12 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

: > Apparently Linux 1.3 with the re-written TCP/IP code still isn't up to
: > the task.
: 
: Sheesh.  What it must have cost him to say _that_.  Bit of a pity, really.

The latest from linux-hackers is that one of the hold ups of the 2.0
release are some lingering problems with the TCP code.  The comments
that Alan was making were wrt 1.3.8something, so shouldn't necessarily
be an indication of what they've done since then (they are up to
1.3.105 effectively (counting the 1.99.x releases as 1.3.10x)).

I'm not saying that therefore there code must be better or worse now,
just that the relevance Alan's comments are decaying as rapidly as
they are changing the TCP code.

Warner