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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html