Paul Fulghum wrote:
quoted text
> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>> It's complex, I think kernel interface to generic HDLC would mean more
>> code than PPP implementation required for fixed lines.
>> Additional requirement - userspace daemon with additional plugin - may
>> not be the best thing for fixed lines either.
>>
>> That would break backward compatibility, too.
> 
> I maintain both pppd and generic HDLC PPP
> interfaces for the synclink drivers.
> I would like to have a single PPP implementation,
> but what Krzysztof writes about compatibility and complexity
> (both in coding and user configuration) is a real issue.
> 
> Many customers who choose to use generic HDLC PPP are *dead*
> set against the added complexity and (user space)
> components of using pppd even though it has more features.
> I say that having tried to persuade such users to use pppd.
> The response is usually "support the simpler generic
> HDLC PPP way of doing things or we will go elsewhere".
> Others require the extra features of pppd.
> 
> I understand customer desires are not always rational
> or a primary concern when making these architectural
> decisions, but I know forcing the extra complexity and
> components of pppd on generic HDLC users will cause a
> lot of anger and defections.

The fact that Krzysztof's solution was _small_ and _clean_ and easily 
maintainable was the reason I merged it [into my tree].

IMO sometimes "one size fits all" is not the best solution.

	Jeff



--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/