From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 17 21:16:39 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA22240 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 21:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA22235 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 21:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by who.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) with ESMTP id VAA24930 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 21:16:35 -0700 Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00621; Fri, 17 May 1996 22:15:15 -0600 Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 22:15:15 -0600 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199605180415.WAA00621@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Warner Losh Cc: Michael Smith , nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Note from Usenet In-Reply-To: <199605180350.VAA12112@rover.village.org> References: <199605180350.VAA12112@rover.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. > > 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)). Comments made for pre2.0.4 (who thought of that naming scheme?) says the the TCP bugs still exist. See my previous comments on this subject, but it sounds like they aren't planning on fixing the 'real bugs' until after 2.0 is released since they don't have the time to do it right, and they want to get 2.0 out the door. So, it's going to stay that way. Nate ps. Just so it doesn't sound like I'm Linux-bashing, apparently these new problems don't exist in 1.2.13 (or whatever the most recent 'stable' version of Linux is).