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

Lynne Jolitz lynne at telemuse.net
Tue Jan 9 15:46:54 PST 2007

Perfectly correct. The Linux model is very different from the older BSD model of major changes and revisions every few years, and it follows more the product "renovation" cycle that Ray Lane of KPCB espouses. Bridging the gap by carefully following incremental work is the price to be paid by academics to ensure the continuity of their work in Linux.

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.

I'm pleased to hear how eager the Linux conference attendees were to hear an academic "star" and take them seriously. And you are right - perhaps it is time for more networking and OS "stars" to reach out to them through talks.

Lynne Jolitz.

We use SpamQuiz.
If your ISP didn't make the grade try http://lynne.telemuse.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org
> [mailto:end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org]On Behalf Of Jim Gettys
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 10:35 AM
> To: Joe Touch
> Cc: Lynne Jolitz; end2end-interest list
> Subject: Re: [e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?
> There is a fundamental divide that has to be overcome.
> With a few exceptions (Ted T'so comes to mind), there has been few Linux
> people who also have been exposed to actively participating in the IETF.
> The culture has been that there are IETF (and other specifications) that
> the Linux community read and implement.  And, as you note, they are
> (often) volunteers, though these days, a large fraction of the key
> developers are full time employees of various companies.
> If this community wants to bridge this divide, I'd recommend some active
> outreach.  Having worked in both communities, it is remarkable how few
> faces are in common.
> One opportunity is next week at Linux Conf Australia (in Sydney).  A
> year ago, Van Jacobson gave the best talk I've attended in more than a
> decade in New Zealand at LCA (it was the best talk of the conference,
> and given twice as a result), and caused quite a bit of a stir and
> ferment among the Linux networking people.  This kind of cross
> fertilization is healthy for both communities, I believe.
> Now I'll throw some stones at some of the academic research I've seen
> done on Linux.
> One of the fundamental tenants of Linux development is its continual
> nature.  I've seen some very good academic work end up being entirely
> ignored since, by the time the work was done, the work (which was based
> on what had become a several year stale version of Linux), was hopeless
> integrate into Linux.  
> If you *really* want research that can be taken advantage of by Linux,
> you have to understand Linux's development model, and be willing to pay
> the price to keep up with ongoing development, and figure out how to get
> from where Linux is, to where it should be in an incremental fashion. 
> Particularly since the Linux 2.6 series started, "big bang" integrations
> of large changes into the system never occur; it is always stepwise
> evolution, and you have to work in this fashion, as part of the
> development community.
>                                    Regards,
>                                         - Jim
> On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 09:02 -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> > 
> > Lynne Jolitz wrote:
> > > But if it's not worth the time and effort for the academic side to
> > > take on this charge, the marketplace will have to serve instead.
> > 
> > It's not whether academics want to spend the time and effort. Many are
> > already giving it for projects they prefer (e.g., FreeBSD in my case);
> > others have none to give (note the dearth of academics on the IESG,
> > which requires letters of 80% support).
> > 
> > I.e., the effort of volunteers is subject to its own market as well.
> > 
> > However, the primary tension seems to be that:
> > 	- standards bodies rely on emissaries from
> > 	development communities
> > 
> > 	- development communities rely on volunteers
> > 
> > This may appear to suggest that the two communities are competing for
> > volunteers, but that's not the case. We all *must* come together to work
> > on standards; the same is not true for particular OS's.
> > 
> > Joe
> > 
> -- 
> Jim Gettys
> One Laptop Per Child

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list