On Feb 17, 2008 1:53 PM, Mayuresh Kathe  wrote:

quoted text
> Its good to know that Ted did indeed try to scratch an itch of his and

> laid down some ground work for future developers to take it beyond its

> basic level.

> But, it would have been *nicer* if Ted had put in some more of his

> time and effort to complete what he started.

> Also, we don't get to use his code for FREE, I suppose most of the

> users *buy* CD sets.

It would also be nice if you would learn C and code up your new TCP/IP

stack yourself.  We don't always get everything we want.
His code is free to anyone that wants it for free.  Do you not

understand how the BSD license and AnonCVS work?
> > You are talking about nebulous features that are over hyped and

quoted text
> > under proven.  One needs a problem first before fixing it.  You are

> > putting it the wrong way around by saying "hey I'd like a super duper

> > faster tcp/ip stack man!".  Why?  What problem are you solving?

>

> The problem that would get solved would be best presented by the

> following article http://research.sun.com/minds/2007-0710/

What specifically about the OpenBSD TCP/IP stack is too slow for your

needs?  Perhaps some simple sysctl tuning or using a different NIC

will fix what you mistakenly think is an inherent flaw.
> > A frequent complaint is that we don't listen to our user base.  That is

quoted text
> > utterly false.  We listen and we implement what we have time for and

> > what makes sense (chances are we have thought through the problem

> > domain; ever considered that?).  A single person's need is irrelevant in

> > the grand scheme of things.  If you need something you need to write it

> > yourself.

>

> Agreed, but wouldn't it be better if there was some kind-a list of

> features most requested by users who can't/don't code in C?

> Then you core people could keep an eye on that list and think through

> your problems keeping that detail in mind.

This comes up once every few months.  The general consensus is that

lists are a waste of time that's better spent coding.  Posting such a

list implies that developers are actually interested in and/or

committing resources to implementing everything on it.
> Nothing of that sort, I don't _expect_ developers to do what I ask

quoted text
> for, in fact I've got very few needs above what the system is offering

> me right now, just that it hurts to see rest of the projects getting

> some nice features which we too would've got had the developers

> focused and *completed* what they started.

If the system does what you need, why do you care about writing this

brand new TCP/IP stack then?
As far as other projects getting these features, so what?  If they're

that critical to you, go use that project instead.  If it's

BSD-licensed code, kindly ask if someone can import it to OpenBSD, but

don't expect it to happen without a thorough code audit.
> I'm not belittling the developers, just that I really got irritated

quoted text
> when I lost 5 of the best developers (who were going to start work on

> a new TCP/IP stack) I'd gathered because Ted lost interest in his own

> work.

Such is the nature of open source development.  Have you spoken with

Ted or any other developers regarding this?  Perhaps they might regain

interest after hearing your proposal, or at the very least provide

some critique on its merits.
--david