David Miller wrote:
> Users say this to strong-hand developers, it's not something you
> should ever take very seriously. And even if Linux may simply not be
> for them, well that's fine too, and implementing something as obscure
> as HDLC PPP one way or the other is not going to change that.
Certainly not a big deal for Linux, but more
significant for vendors of HDLC hardware :-)
David Miller wrote:
> I would have been more than happy if syncppp was retained and fixed
> properly, instead of being abandoned and duplicated in one fell swoop.
I'd be happy with that also. I was responding to the
suggestion of merging generic HDLC PPP with the pppd implementation.
It's been suggested before, but doing so looks messy.
James Chapman wrote:
> Paul Fulghum wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Are there technical reasons or is the complexity just a lack of
> familiarity?
From what I can tell it was an existing investment in scripts,
training, tools, naming conventions, etc. Even when
provided with new tools and scripts that do the same thing (as
far as I could tell) the response was suprisingly vehement against
change.
--
Paul
--
