On Feb 18, 2008 1:16 AM, David Higgs  wrote:

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

> > 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.

This is weird isn't it?

If I had *wanted* to learn C wouldn't I have done it already?
> His code is free to anyone that wants it for free.  Do you not

quoted text
> understand how the BSD license and AnonCVS work?

It gets stranger.

How is a bare bones code ever going to be useful to a non developing user?

Its useful to them only when its part of an overall system.

And that overall system in a really usable state is only available via

CDs which need to be purchased.

I'm not saying that this purchase it if you want model is bad, I find

it to be really good, that way the development keeps going on.
> > > 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.

I never said its an inherent flaw, its just that its dated.

Better to have something that is more in tune with what is needed in

the current world scenario.
> > > 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

> > 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?

Because I said, "I've got very few needs *above* what the system is

offering me right now".
~Mayuresh