From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Re: WAN: new PPP code for generic HDLC Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080422.150259.205494753.davem@davemloft.net> References: <480CEB7D.8070702@katalix.com> <480E5CB3.2080003@microgate.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: khc@pm.waw.pl, jchapman@katalix.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: paulkf@microgate.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:56643 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757460AbYDVWC5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:02:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <480E5CB3.2080003@microgate.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Paul Fulghum Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:46:27 -0600 > The response is usually "support the simpler generic > HDLC PPP way of doing things or we will go elsewhere". 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. I mean, be realistic here. Are we going to have three copies of code implementing the same thing because some HDLC PPP users threatened to defect? That's simply rediculious.