TCP/IP Offload Engine

[Hank]

I felt it was slanted due to biased comments like:

"In order to configure a TOE NIC, hardware-specific tools are usually
required. This dramatically increases support costs. "

Instead of something more balanced like "This may increase support costs"
especially when they just said "tools are *usually* required"... or just
drop the "dramatically".   For instance, if I have a room full of the same
TOE NICs, and I use the same (vendor/hardware specific) tool to configure
them (instead of linux tools), where's the "dramatically increased support
costs"?  Nothing like a good old over generalization to get a point across.

..or the statement "refer users to the vendor -- who in all likelihood cares
more about non-Linux operating systems".. is also a very biased
statement/conjecture/opinion.

And one more: "Supporting TOE requires *massive*, heavily invasive hooks
into the network stack.".   It's just a little too dramatic of a comment
there.  We get it.

 It's clear that whoever wrote it had an axe to grind against TOE.

-Hank


On 5/3/07, Kuba Ober <kuba at mareimbrium.org> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 03 May 2007, Hank wrote:
> > Here's good (but somewhat slanted) discussion why TOE is not supported
> on
> > Linux:
> >
> > http://linux-net.osdl.org/index.php/TOE
>
> It's pretty much dead-on. I can't say it's slanted.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-poweredge/attachments/20070503/f4421902/attachment.htm