Re: [9fans] linux il/ip

[Dave Lukes <davel@anvil.com>]

</lurk>

> il is dead,

Empirically this is currently  untrue.

Also, a while ago, the perceptive Mr. Forsyth pointed out
that keeping >1 protocol around makes people more honest
(i.e. less inclined to make things more-or-less subtly 
protocol-dependent).

I know that's not an argument in favour of il,
but there ain't anything else is there?

Also, on a personal note,
one of the main strengths of plan9 from my pot of view is didacticism:
having a clean(er) protocol around to look at may in itself be useful.


> deal with it.

OK: I'll deal with it.  Here goes ...

	BoooHoooo!!! Bwaaaaahhhh!!!
	You BASTARD!!!!!!! YOU KILLED IL!!!!
	I will TRAVEL back in TIME and MUTATE your ANCESTORS!!!!!!!!!

There: I've dealt with it.

Just in case it causes offence: the above was a JOKE.




>  if you like i'll remove it from the distributed code.

Please don't do that:
you'll only encourage the kids to create mutant underground versions.

>  ken tried to put tcp into the old fileserver and gave up in disgust.

and you wonder why people have a lingering fondness for il?

I know nothing about il other than it's leaner than TCP,
both in implementation and on the wire,
but even that may be useful as an example of how to do it.

When in future I decide to hurl bits around a LAN at high speed,
I don't want TCP dreck vomited over my wires;
nor do I want to do the damned TCP ritual
where I have to have the damned manuals in front of
me to look at the packets because TCP is like pain:
the human mind can't recall it accurately
if it is to stay sane.

I'm sure that il ain't The Definitive Answer
but neither is TCP (definitely!)

   DaveL


<lurk reason="company has been bought">:-)