From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jan 10 21:10:54 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA01097
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 21:10:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA01054
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 21:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id QAA24844; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:02:49 +1100
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 16:02:49 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199601110502.QAA24844@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: dennis@etinc.com, nate@sri.MT.net
Subject: Re: pppd vs ijppp
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, nate@rocky.sri.MT.net
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>> And lastly, I think if you took a show of hands on providers and users
>> after asking them if they would mind using even 50k to get better
>> performance i think that I'd be surprised to see even 1 hand not
>> waving wildly in the air.

>Give them the whole picture.

>'You can have this really cool package which integrates everything you
>want and is *really* easy to setup.  However, it uses about 5% (*) of your
>CPU.  OR, you could have this other version which uses about 1% of your
>CPU, but it's alot harder to setup and doesn't have as many features.'

>Or, we could all of those features in the kernel, increase your memory
>use by a couple 100K (always, even if you don't use it), and it would
>take us 6 months to get it working. :)'

(*) Fine print.  Per connection.  Perhaps less than 5%.

Bruce