Subject: Re: Q's from localtalk efforts
To: None <tech-net@NetBSD.ORG>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 02/25/1997 13:51:55
>> I've rewritten much of the tun driver, and among other things made
>> it capable of handling multiple address families. Only a little of
>> this has made it back into the tree, probably largely because I did
>> a special device with a text interface rather than a slew of new
>> ioctl()s as the interface to frobbing options.
> Hmm, why not just add this slew of ioctl()s and get this stuff into
> the tree?
The usual reason: I have no !@*(&%#@# time. Anybody wanna hire me to
work on NetBSD? In Montreal? Don't everybody speak up at once.
> Or just convince the others of the beauty of your text interface and
> get your version into the tree :-)
Yeah, I wish. Core seems to have followed Berkeley in wandering even
farther from the "everything is a file" paradigm; there's little chance
I alone can drag them all back, even had I the energy to undertake the
task. Look at sysctl(). Look at the resistance evidenced any time
anyone suggests actually using kernfs or procfs for anything. Look at
this case. :-/
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B