Re: Linux TCP Fixing everyones problems? AND: mo' better options

Juan Carlos Castro y Castro (jcastro@pcshop.com.br)
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:43:07 -0300


Dennis wrote:
>
> At 06:36 AM 4/13/99 -0400, jamal wrote:
> >
> >(...) Why in hell should i be
> >running a few extra opcodes per TCP packet (in the fast path of all
> >places) when i dont talk to Apples?
>
> Because Linux is bigger than the tiny little world you live in. Its an OS,
> and it has to WORK in the real world, outside of classrooms and your little
> network. You cant say "were not gonna put it in because SUN is doing it
> wrong", because sun isnt going away and comm managers are too stupid to
> understand.

If these things become kernel options (so they can be left out if you,
for instance, don't have Ciscos in your network or don't need to talk IP
with Macs), why the argument? Whoever doesn't need it will have the
blazingly fast IP stack they want.

Speaking of kernel options (Linus and the rest of the inner circle
hear), shouldn't we have kernel options for things like, max number of
total/perprocess open files, inodes and the like?

I don't subscribe to Linux-Kernel, so reply to me please.

-- 

___THE___ "Commercial OS vendors are, at the moment, all closed \ \ / / economies, and doomed to fall in their competition with \ V / open economies just as communism eventually fell." \ / -- H. Reiser, Unix OS developer / \ _____________________________________________________ / ^ \ | Juan Carlos Castro y Castro - jcastro@pcshop.com.br | / / \ \ | Diretor de Informática e Eventos Sobrenaturais da | ~~~ ~~~ | E-RACE CORPORATION | RACER -----------------------------------------------------

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