The (superlow)quality of software (was Re: Python Popularity: Questions and Comments)

[David Bolen]

Oleg Broytmann <phd at phd.pp.ru> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 03:41:25PM -0800, Cliff Wells wrote:
> > >    TCP/IP is vulnerable to many kinds of attacks; it lacks QoS
> > > (bandwidth-on-demand, e.g., or guaranteed connectivity).
> > >    (I am playing a devil advocate here, of course.)
> > 
> > Is there a better alternative? NETBEUI, IPX, SNA... Appletalk?
> 
>    That was exactly my point - TCP/IP was not mature.... but other
> alternatives was even worse.

I'd disagree that having an exposure or missing a feature would make a
protocol "immature".  TCP/IP as a protocol family has been stable and
unchanging for a long time now, and I would argue meets its original
goals.  There are many very solid implementations, including support
for specific implementation optimizations that are well known and
commonly implemented.  I think thats more than enough to consider a
protocol stack could be considered "mature".

Whether or not the protocol was designed to withstand the current
state of the art for attacks, or whether it has all the modern
desirable features is an orthogonal question - one of applicability
and not of maturity.

--
-- David
-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
 \               David Bolen            \   E-mail: db3l at fitlinxx.com  /
  |             FitLinxx, Inc.            \  Phone: (203) 708-5192    |
 /  860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT  06902   \  Fax: (203) 316-5150     \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/