pppd crashes, was: kde-freebsd

[John Walthall]

Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2007-Feb-08 17:16:23 -0500, John Walthall <johnzw at isp.com> wrote:
>> functionally obsolete. User PPP provides better service, and several
>> tangible design benefits. User PPP is very easy to use, Kernel PPP is not.
> 
> Actually, kernel PPP has one significant (at least theoretical)
> advantage over user ppp:  Network data is not pushed through the
> kernel/userland interface an additional two times.  This is irrelevant
> for low-speed modem interfaces but could be significant for PPPoE on
> high-speed broadband.  Keep in mind that a firewall host is likely to
> be a slow box - either a pensioned-off desktop or a mini-ITX style
> system.
> 
>> FreeBSD is NOT Linux, and SHOULD NOT attempt to model it. FreeBSD is BSD
>> UNIX! Isn't that the WHOLE POINT (pardon my shouting) for our existence?
> 
> I'm not sure I see where Linux comes into this.  Looking back into
> history, it seems that both ppp(4) and ppp(8) arrived fairly close
> together.  It appears that ppp(4) was a port of the portable ppp-2.2
> code - the same code as used in SunOS AFAIR.
> 

Yes, indeed. I admit I had not thought of that. I was writing from MY 
personal perspective, With my nice modern machine and my privileged 
state of not having broadband access (wink, wink). This is a rant, er 
editorial; I am writing as it seems to *me*. Conceded: this is not true 
for *everyone*.

As to where Linux comes in. It appears to me that PPP is the more normal 
way on FreeBSD, whereas, in my own experience Linux, (or at least, the 
distributions I formerly used) prefer PPPD. Therefore when KDE wrote 
KPPP, (and they originally wrote it more-or-less for Linux.) They used 
PPPD. There is nothing theoretically invalid about PPPD. It's just not 
quite how we do things *most of the time*. Over time FreeBSD and Linux 
drifted apart on this design issue, and it became something of a 
characteristic of BSD, perhaps that is why Kernel PPP became less well 
maintained

I should *not* have said "Did a clumsy job". I probably should have 
said, "Did a less than perfect job". I guess it's kind of like trying to 
make a bread recipe with rice flour instead of wheat flour. I retract 
this phrase.

Regarding the various comments by Michael Nottebrock, Firstly: The bug 
you mentioned I have not experienced. I never had problems when killing 
the X-server. I cannot comment on that. I do not often kill my X-Server; 
perhaps I just didn't do it frequently enough. If you believe that this 
speech is a rant, you are somewhat correct. I am rather cross and it 
does show. However I differ with your estimation that it is undignified. 
Oh, Please! With all due respect you take things entirely too seriously. 
I am obviously being over-the-sarcastic. If you feel that you "should 
not dignify this rant by replying to it, but," then don't! No buts! If 
you really think it is a rant. Ignore it! That's the mature thing to do! 
As for your opinion that I should close the bug. I will not. An unwise 
design decision has caused this problem. Because of known problems with 
PPPD, KPPP should provide at least the option of using user land PPP. 
You may of course differ from this view. However, unless a large outcry 
arises, I will not close the bug. I think that it is, in-fact a bug. 
Bugs are sometimes a bit subjective. The KPPP Developers can always 
ignore me.

-- 
Unless instructed to do otherwise, Please
address mail to vistua at sdf.lonestar.org
and not to this address. Thank you.