Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:50:00 +0100 From: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Stefan Bethke <stb@lassitu.de> Subject: Re: AppleTalk status Message-ID: <ED5CB5E6-C013-4A71-8F3A-3C9BF620E687@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4BFBFF6A.1090807@elischer.org> References: <7DB9656A-44DF-4A37-B9A4-652451234FEE@lassitu.de> <4BFBFF6A.1090807@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25 May 2010, at 17:48, Julian Elischer wrote: >> I'm working on updating net/netatalk to version 2.1 (or 2.1.1 when >> that comes out the next couple of days), and I'm wondering what >> state AppleTalk support is in these days. Is anybody still using >> it, or would now be the time to make all AppleTalk support in that >> port optional, and just focus on the file server component? >>=20 >> I haven't used AppleTalk for at least eight years now, and I don't >> quite see which setting it still would be used in nowadays... >=20 > I did the original port to freeBSD (from a netbsd port from memory) > I haven't checked recently but it was used by several companies = running legacy stuff in some industrial control situations. > In any case it's good having a working example of another protocol > as the world is getting a bit too focused on IP these days > and having a different protocol in the sources keeps us honest. FWIW, I have no intention of removing the kernel support for appletalk = (or, perhaps more properly, ethertalk). It does want to be changed to = use our link layer improvements in 8.x, but what is there today works = fine and should continue to work fine for the forseeable future. = Virtualizing for VIMAGE will probably take someone a couple of = afternoons, and I tentatively plan to do it "at some point" before 9.0. Robert=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ED5CB5E6-C013-4A71-8F3A-3C9BF620E687>