On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 07:55:55AM +0200, Jean-Francois wrote: > Le Thursday 28 October 2010 03:34:15, Theo de Raadt a icrit : > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:26 PM, FRLinux <frli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Theo de Raadt > > > > <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> The design process followed by the NFSv4 team members matches the > > > >> methodology taken by the IPV6 people. =A0(As in, once a mistake is > > > >> made, > > > > > > > > Sorry, I'll bite. What exactly is wrong with IPv6 here? I gathered > > > > from this list not a lot of developers here like it, but I still don't > > > > get it. Please educate me (this should be enlightening). > > > > > > Instead of fixing the one problem with v4, they decided to fix a > > > thousand additional "problems" that nobody really cares about. > > > > in that regard i disagree, but perhaps only in tone. > > > > With ipv6, they decided to create a bunch of new problems that > > people now find they care deeply about > > > > - they created a totally new problem by avoiding arp. the > > benefit of their layer-2 discovery mechanism has been > > absolutely zero; the best unit of measure for the cost of > > that decision is "decades". > > > > - they created a new problem by punting global routing to > > "further study" (in this, they showed that they had deep > > familiarity with appletalk and ipx). > > > > - they created an entirely new and huge problem (destroying > > SIOCGIFCONF backwards compat hurt IPV6 deployment in operating > > systems on a massive scale) by not making their sockaddr be > > a power of 2 in size. it sounds silly, but it turns out it > > is the kind of thing which matters. when they were told of > > this problem (very early on) they said something like "oh, > > but we already have 3 engineers in the world running their > > own ipv6 test code, so it is too late to change that". > > this is the specific mindset which results in layers of bad > > decisions papered over top of each other. > > > > shit which comes out of research organizations all tends to suck these > > days, doesn't it. or perhaps it always did (OSI networking, ipv6, > > same same). > > > > i have theorized in the past that the problem we face is > > that an insufficient number of axe murderers are attending those kinds > > of research meetings. > > Why not taking part of intl. engineering ? Thus you could act upon worldwide > decisions. >
Taking part of intl. engineering brings you either into a lunatic asylum or into prison. We're not that dumb to go down that road. -- :wq Claudio
