[Rdma-developers] Re: [openib-general] OpenIB and OpenRDMA: Convergence on common RDMAAPIs and ULPs for Linux

[Caitlin Bestler]

On 5/28/05, Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 05:17:54AM -0700, Sukanta ganguly wrote:
> > That's a pretty bold statement. Linux grew up to be
> > popular via mass acceptance. Seems like that charter
> > has changed and a few have control over Linux and its
> > future. The "My way or the highway" philosophy has
> > gotten embedded in the Linux way of life.
> > Life is getting tough.
> 
> You're totally missing the point.  Linux is successfull exactly
> because it's lookinf for the right solution, not something the
> business people need short-term.


Such myopic cheerleading gets annoying and accomplishes
nothing.

The topic under discussion is whether a low level API for
RDMA is necessary (as opposed to a higher level API
such as kDAPL) and if so what the best strategy for
achieving it is (try to plan an IB/iWARP merge immediately
or wait until there is an iWARP code base).

Claiming that an InfiniBand-specific  interface is somehow
thinking "long term" is just plain ludicrous.

Now it may be that the short term interest of the InfiniBand
vendors is such that they cannot commit resources to
helping build a transport neutral API. That is always a
legitimate tradeoff, but it is "short term corporate thinking".
Last time I looked most of the commits being made to
OpenIB (or sourceforge DAPL) were from being drawing
paychecks from those "evil corporations".