[e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?

[David P. Reed]

This list, is, after all, associated with the IRTF, not the IETF.  I 
must admit that I may be seen as biased, since I tend to run the "git" 
version of the Linux mainstream kernel, so I live at the bleeding edge, 
and I have contributed small fixes to the kernel development process 
(one being queued for 2.6.25 as we speak).

It seems extremely healthy for Linux (as the only game in town for truly 
planet-scale open research collaboration at the OS level) to be allowing 
its users to participate in shaking out issues in the evolving Internet.

If only Microsoft would allow experimenters planet-wide to experiment 
with its full OS source code so that students can learn... naah.   
Wouldn't want to hurt BillG's ego by confronting the idea that today's 
kids include some smarter than he is/was...  better to act like IBM 
mainframers did when he was a kid.

L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>
> Didn't we have this same conversation last January?
>
> How is e.g. Microsoft any different with compound TCP being only an
> internet-draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sridharan-tcpm-ctcp-01.txt
> yet deployed widely in Vista?
>
> Doing the whole FreeBSD-sneering-at-Linux thing is, well, old. There
> are many academics using Linux, not least because it's not picky about
> what it runs on. You're ignoring the goofy elephant in the room.
>
> Linux deploying experimental protocols means it's less work for
> academics to tweak newly-designed protocols and propose and test
> variants, ergo academics like it.
>
> Stability doesn't come into it, if academic code is anything to go by.
> An academic views code as stable if it hasn't crashed on him recently,
> or if it gives usable results before (or even while) crashing. It's 
> all about
> the results. Academics like results, and they like things that get them
> results easily.
>
> And where's the research value and funding in working on an
> already existing standard?
>
> L.
>
> Detlef Bosau wrote:
> > Lynne Jolitz wrote:
> ...
> >> Many people on the academic side still use forms of BSD, and perhaps
> >> prefer the old way of doing things. I use BSD myself. However, Linux
> >> is clearly the market leader and cooperating with how they handle
> >> their development model is a key consideration for promulgating new
> >> work in networking and operating systems.  
> >
> > That´s simply not the point.
> >
> > I think, Lloyd Wood made the point precisely:
> >
> > "Academics are rewarded by writing papers. They are not rewarded by
> > staying current with the current codebase of the linux kernel/ns."
>
> Nor are they rewarded for paying the penalty of the goofiness of the
> Linux community in deploying experimental protocols as default. This has
> come up at a number of IETF meetings, in particular, regarding CUBIC
> which is currently the default in Linux despite being an Internet Draft
> intended as experimental in the IETF.
>
> Academics like stability, and they like things that follow standards.
>
> Joe
>
>