Re: reopening ECN bugreport/netbase
On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 01:37:02AM -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
> * Craig Sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> [010905 20:17]:
> > the correct solution is to NOT compile ECN support into the distribution
> > kernels. that's a choice that should be left up to the individual system
> So, lets fix one problem by creating another problem! ECN isn't there
no, that isn't a problem. the kernel works just fine without ECN being
if you want it, you do what every other user of the linux kernel has to do
and compile a new kernel with support for it.
quite frankly, if someone doesn't know how to compile a kernel then
they're not qualified to decide whether they want to use it or not. in
that case, the correct course of action for a package maintainer is to
cause the least harm.
the fact is that there is no possibility of harm if ECN is disabled
in the kernel, while there IS possibility of harm if it is enabled.
therefore it should be disabled by default.
anyone who is running servers busy enough that they actually need ECN
should have enough of a clue to know how to compile a kernel and enable
> What if some users were actually using that?
since it's only been enabled in recent kernel-image packages, very few
(if any) people will be be surprised by it being removed again.
> ECN IS NOT A USELESS RFC. ECN IS NOT A USELESS RFC.
of course it's not. it will eventually be universal.
> some people actually like to use this stuff.
yes, i know. i use it.
however, it's an experimental feature which isn't needed on the debian
distributed kernel images.
it might be appropriate to have it on by default in a year or so. but
ps: why is it that so many people get so upset if their pet
feature-of-the-month isn't the default in debian? debian's defaults
should conform to the principles of Least Suprise and Least Harm, not
the principle of Maximal GeeWhizzery.
it's only a default, get over it.
craig sanders <email@example.com>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch