Re: setsockopt() compat issue

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb%cs.columbia.edu@localhost>]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:53:22 -0400
"Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc." <woods%planix.ca@localhost> wrote:

> 
> On 18-Oct-08, at 3:29 PM, matthew green wrote:
> 
> > in any case, read this to see why we have what we have now:
> >
> > http://www.unix.org/version2/whatsnew/lp64_wp.html
> 
> I think most of those arguments given in that paper are almost as  
> completely bogus, and are clearly ignorant of the various elephants
> in their room, as the (sadly similar) arguments which created the
> massive and unnecessary bogosity which came out of the Large File
> Summit.

I don't know about that, but I do note that the page is 10 years old,
and says that "16 MB [RAM] chips are readily available" and that
"drives of 4 GB are readily available".

Re-examining performance-based decisions periodically is always a good
idea...


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb