tech-net archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]


On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 03:55:28AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 08:14:50AM +0100, Iain Hibbert wrote:
> > 
> > The other two I'm not sure about but in the future if somebody did the
> > work to switch strip(4) and slip(4) to auto-cloning devices, the ENABLE
> > for those could be dropped..
> I think strip(4) should be removed.  Technically -- if the hardware it
> was written for still exists anywhere -- it would work, but only if
> someone had enough of the ancient radios to build a mesh network, since
> Metricom went boom and turned off all their repeaters a decade ago.

If somebody will send me a pair of strip(4) radios, I will maintain
the driver until either I run out of time, or strip(4) clearly holds
back kernel development, whichever comes first.

(What can I say, I like the idea of retro radio-networking.)

> I am not sure what should be done with slip(4).  It is possible that, by
> now, it should be removed too.

Speaking as one who has done a lot of rototillage of the network
drivers, especially by overhauling ifioctl(), both strip(4) and sl(4)
were painless to update compared with lmc(4), pdq(4), and srt(4).


David Young             OJC Technologies      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index