From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:43:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:43:33 -0400 Received: from vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca ([136.159.55.21]:16008 "EHLO vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:43:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:42:53 -0600 Message-Id: <200106062242.f56Mgrx20007@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> From: Richard Gooch To: Alexander Viro Cc: "David S. Miller" , "La Monte H.P. Yarroll" , "Matt D. Robinson" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sctp-developers-list@cig.mot.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] sockreg2.4.5-05 inet[6]_create() register/unregister table In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <15134.43914.98253.998655@pizda.ninka.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexander Viro writes: > > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, David S. Miller wrote: > > > This allows people to make proprietary implementations of TCP under > > Linux. And we don't want this just as we don't want to add a way to > > allow someone to do a proprietary Linux VM. > > Erm... What stops those who want to do such implementations > from using AF_PACKET and handling the whole thing in userland? Just that their performance will suck. People are far less likely to adopt a product (with an "embrace and extend" side effect) if said product sucks performance. Besides, it's better if people send patches to speed up our stack, rather than having a proprietary product. Patches benefit all mankind. Products benefit the vendor. Regards, Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca