Ok, now an editorial: Kernel PPP is certified crap and should be phased out. In my personal opinion the reason that it is unmaintained and slowly dissolving into a nonfunctional pool of electrolytes, is that it is functionally obsolete. User PPP provides better service, and several tangible design benefits. User PPP is very easy to use, Kernel PPP is not. I have had nothing but serious problems with Kernel PPP, In my experience whenever Kernel PPP crashes, which it does pretty much at random, and always when the network drops (a common happening for those of us blighted by Dial up.) It causes the whole system to lock up. *Forcing*me*to*physically*unplug*the*computer*to*continue*. FreeBSD is NOT Linux, and SHOULD NOT attempt to model it. FreeBSD is BSD UNIX! Isn't that the WHOLE POINT (pardon my shouting) for our existence? Isn't this why you and me bear with minor points such as this one. BECAUSE WE ARE DIFFERENT AND PROUD OF IT! If you just start modeling Linux, we are invalidating our own existence and vindicating Linux's innumerable disparities, nay flaws. We have a fundamental design difference from Linux here. We chose this difference because we believed that it was better. Why would we go back now because the developers of a third-party interface to our systems did a clumsy job? Rather than weep in anguish at their implementation of a known faulty and legacy system. We should adjure them to implement the new and better system. This is not actually an appropriate place for this discussion. It should be directed to porten@kde.org and/or http://bugs.kde.org. Because it is a KDE problem and *not* a FreeBSD Problem. (I have already submitted it to the KDE Bugzilla) These are of course my own opinions. -- Unless instructed to do otherwise | Support public access UNIX address mail to vistua@sdf.lonestar.org | http://sdf.lonestar.org and not to johnzw@isp.com |
On Thursday, 8. February 2007 23:16, John Walthall wrote:> Ok, now an editorial:I should not really dignify this rant by replying to it, but:> We have a fundamental design difference from Linux here. We chose this > difference because we believed that it was better. Why would we go back > now because the developers of a third-party interface to our systems did > a clumsy job?KPPP is not an interface to 'our' systems. It's an interface to *pppd*, which happens to be available for a wide range of Unices and Unix-like systems.> We should adjure them to implement the > new and better system. This is not actually an appropriate place for > this discussion. It should be directed to porten@kde.org and/or > http://bugs.kde.org. Because it is a KDE problem and *not* a FreeBSD > Problem. (I have already submitted it to the KDE Bugzilla)A kernel panic/freeze triggered by a badly maintained driver is most certainly not any application's problem. You should probably close that bug yourself. -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20070209/e993c872/attachment-0001.pgp
On 2007-Feb-08 17:16:23 -0500, John Walthall <johnzw@isp.com> wrote:>functionally obsolete. User PPP provides better service, and several >tangible design benefits. User PPP is very easy to use, Kernel PPP is not.Actually, kernel PPP has one significant (at least theoretical) advantage over user ppp: Network data is not pushed through the kernel/userland interface an additional two times. This is irrelevant for low-speed modem interfaces but could be significant for PPPoE on high-speed broadband. Keep in mind that a firewall host is likely to be a slow box - either a pensioned-off desktop or a mini-ITX style system.>FreeBSD is NOT Linux, and SHOULD NOT attempt to model it. FreeBSD is BSD >UNIX! Isn't that the WHOLE POINT (pardon my shouting) for our existence?I'm not sure I see where Linux comes into this. Looking back into history, it seems that both ppp(4) and ppp(8) arrived fairly close together. It appears that ppp(4) was a port of the portable ppp-2.2 code - the same code as used in SunOS AFAIR. -- Peter Jeremy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20070209/375abc16/attachment.pgp