Re: Scheduled Transfer Protocol on Linux

From: Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:51:08 EST


: Anyway Larry, we did this __TWO__ years ago. Integrating a network interface
: into disk drives is not visionary...

Where's the product? And how does this jive with your constant claims of
"it's not feasable". What exactly is your position? Networking is OK,
but a processor is not? Or networking is OK and some processors are OK,
but not the ones I said? Or networking is OK and processors are OK and
Linux is not? I must admit, you have me confused.

: I realize this is a bit presumptuous of
: me, but may I suggest you really should dis-engage your ego from your work...

I'm quite fond of my ego, warts and all. A strong ego can be a bit much
to take, but a weak ego can be worse when you consider the whole picture.
Egotistical people, for all the many downsides they may have, frequently
tend to be the people that have the drive and self confidence to push
into places where their peers are saying "it isn't feasable".

All that said, I will understand if you can't take it. I respectfully
point out that if my ego is a problem for you, nobody is forcing you to
interact with me.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:14 EST