logoalt Hacker News

iamnothereyesterday at 4:02 PM2 repliesview on HN

Coupling this patch with language about “legacy IP”, along with the follow up comments from the person who submitted the patch, it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4. I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions.

I have no problem with allowing optional IPv4 or IPv6 only builds as long as both are kept well-maintained.


Replies

embedding-shapeyesterday at 4:05 PM

> it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4

But so what? It still doesn't remove v4, in any shape or form, and if that was proposed to the kernel, I'm again fairly confident it'd be rejected.

> I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions

Ah, yeah that might be. I just saw your comment first, with no context of what you were actually answering, so it kind of looks like you're replying "to the submission", which really isn't denying any freedoms, I guess I was confused about that, my bad. Still, wouldn't it be better to answer directly to those comments, rather than "replying" to an argument/debate that is actually happening elsewhere?

show 1 reply