Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:52:57 -0500 | From | Paul Fulghum <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] Re: WAN: new PPP code for generic HDLC |
| |
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
| |