<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Didn't we have this same conversation last January?<BR>
<BR>
How is e.g. Microsoft any different with compound TCP being only an<BR>
internet-draft:<BR>
<A HREF="http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sridharan-tcpm-ctcp-01.txt">http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sridharan-tcpm-ctcp-01.txt</A><BR>
yet deployed widely in Vista?<BR>
<BR>
Doing the whole FreeBSD-sneering-at-Linux thing is, well, old. There<BR>
are many academics using Linux, not least because it's not picky about<BR>
what it runs on. You're ignoring the goofy elephant in the room.<BR>
<BR>
Linux deploying experimental protocols means it's less work for<BR>
academics to tweak newly-designed protocols and propose and test<BR>
variants, ergo academics like it.<BR>
<BR>
Stability doesn't come into it, if academic code is anything to go by.<BR>
An academic views code as stable if it hasn't crashed on him recently,<BR>
or if it gives usable results before (or even while) crashing. It's all about<BR>
the results. Academics like results, and they like things that get them<BR>
results easily.<BR>
<BR>
And where's the research value and funding in working on an<BR>
already existing standard?<BR>
<BR>
L.<BR>
<BR>
Detlef Bosau wrote:<BR>
> Lynne Jolitz wrote:<BR>
...<BR>
>> Many people on the academic side still use forms of BSD, and perhaps<BR>
>> prefer the old way of doing things. I use BSD myself. However, Linux<BR>
>> is clearly the market leader and cooperating with how they handle<BR>
>> their development model is a key consideration for promulgating new<BR>
>> work in networking and operating systems. <BR>
><BR>
> That´s simply not the point.<BR>
><BR>
> I think, Lloyd Wood made the point precisely:<BR>
><BR>
> "Academics are rewarded by writing papers. They are not rewarded by<BR>
> staying current with the current codebase of the linux kernel/ns."<BR>
<BR>
Nor are they rewarded for paying the penalty of the goofiness of the<BR>
Linux community in deploying experimental protocols as default. This has<BR>
come up at a number of IETF meetings, in particular, regarding CUBIC<BR>
which is currently the default in Linux despite being an Internet Draft<BR>
intended as experimental in the IETF.<BR>
<BR>
Academics like stability, and they like things that follow standards.<BR>
<BR>
Joe<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>