Scott:
> I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements. It
> has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its shortcomings.
> It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basic" feature sets of
> IOS that do not include any link-state protocols.
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 3:03 PM Lexi Winter wrote:
> (..)
> almost anything would be useful for someone, somewhere. for example,
> i'd quite like to see a basic Wayland compositor (such as hikari) and a
> terminal emulator in the base system, because that's a bit nicer to use
> than vt(4) if you
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 02:02:52PM +0100, Lexi Winter wrote:
> Scott:
> > I use RIPv2 for it's simplicity and small memory and CPU requirements. It
> > has its place and shouldn't be considered "legacy" despite its
> > shortcomings.
> > It's not uncommon for vendors like Cisco to produce "basi
Scott:
> I'm never sure whether to respond to sophistry and rhetoric, but why not,
> let's play:
my intention with this post was not to engage in sophistry, but to
explain (or justify) the reasoning behind my proposal to remove
RIP/RIPng, since you seemed to be asking for more details on that.
i
Scott writes:
> Anyway, fun's over. Perhaps this is a greater lesson that the Foundation
> provide the rules under which code is added or removed from base and then
> we'd all be the wiser.
The FreeBSD Foundation does not set project policy, the FreeBSD Core
Team does.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smør
