> Once upon a time patrick@value.net shaped the electrons to say...
> >match. It is rather amusing to hear you continually making remarks about
> >"bloated OS's" in the 90's when :
> >1) CPU's are cheap.
> >2) Ram is cheap.
> >If it takes a 68050 to do what your 386/40 does, who really cares, in the
> >final analysis? End users for the most part do not care what chips you are
>
> More lines of code -> more bugs
More lines of code -> More features.
> " -> more complexity
Agreed.
> " -> harder to support
Well, while I see this as a valid point from a production angle, as a
consumer, I rather have the extra features.
> I, and many of my friends, have experience in different corporations.
> These truisms have been proven repeatedly. Especially the first one.
>
> >and is performs well in the tasks that it is suited for. Cisco has, and
> >will probably always have you beat in features and scalability.
>
> As far as engineering talent and technology is concerned we could do
> something like their huge routers. But where is the margin in that?
> That market isn't all that large. Does it make sense to try to be another
> Cisco?
No. Livingston has a well-earned niche. Livingston's are suited to some
things, Cisco's to another, and we use both. But going on about
"code-bloat" whenever someone mentions a feature that Livingston doesn't
have seems a little silly.
> These aren't jokes, they are serious questions. Livingston is growing -
> phenomenally - so maybe we will. But it is one product at a time, one
> feature at a time.
>
> A year ago we went from an analog access box builder to analog and ISDN.
> Now we have a PRI unit coming out. A year ago the first office router had
> just come out - now we have 4 models in the family. A year ago the PM-25
> was new, the PM-2eR was only a few months old, OSPF was just getting
> underway (in late beta now), BGP was only being discussed (working test
> code in house now), a lot of new features have been added to all units.
All very positive steps.
> If you step back and look at what has developed in just the past year, it
> is really incredible. The next year should be better.
>
> >> Are you aware that 'Cisco IOS' is NOT the same code tree on all boxes?
> >> ALL versions of ComOS are built from the same code tree.
> >Again, who care? "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."
>
> Upgrades. New features.
And Cisco never comes out with new features in their IOS? BGP flap
dampening, ummm... oh I know, how bout NAT? Coming out in IOS 11.2. Oops,
I know.... more "code bloat," right?
> We add a feature to ComOS and compile - the product line has it (HW
> permitting of course, WAN support on a PM-2 is silly).
Then please, why was it offered? Why is it that there are a ton of people
emailing me when I say don't use the WAN port on a 2eR with more than 3
2eR's on the LAN, asking me why that is? Why don't people know?
> You can't say the
> same with IOS. They have a soup of different OS's that have been bashed
> into looking like IOS to provide a similar user interface. But the
> underlying feature set doesn't translate.
I am not a Cisco expert by any stretch of the imagination. However, IOS
seems fairly standardized to me.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (510) 943-5769 voice
Systems Administrator (510) 210-2000 modem
Value Net, Inc. (510) 943-1708 fax
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/