From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Fulghum Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Re: WAN: new PPP code for generic HDLC Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:52:57 -0500 Message-ID: <480E7A59.6050802@microgate.com> References: <480CEB7D.8070702@katalix.com> <480E5CB3.2080003@microgate.com> <20080422.150259.205494753.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: David Miller Return-path: Received: from adsl-70-250-156-241.dsl.austtx.swbell.net ([70.250.156.241]:34404 "EHLO gw.microgate.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751702AbYDVXxi (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:53:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080422.150259.205494753.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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