131–140 of 262 posts
I'm assuming it is a parody (because of the font)? In any case forking OpenSSL seems like a knee jerk reaction?
"This page scientifically designed to annoy web hipsters. Donate now to stop the Comic Sans and Blink Tags"
OpenBSD folks, what is your obsession with CVS????
I can't speak for them, but I think if you're not sold on git/mercurial then you have CVS and SVN as obvious choices. And those two aren't that different (pros/cons explained: http://www.pushok.com/software/svn-vscvs.html ... edit: that's a very old link)
Very old indeed.
> removed MacOS, Netware, OS/2, VMS and Windows build machinery What are the plans for native Windows support? I don't know what they mean by "The right Portability team in place", but it'd be a joke if the lib would require CygWin or some other external portability scaffolding. And without proper Windows support LibreSSL will simply fragment OpenSSL user base. I guess it's still better than nothing, but it definitel…
> removed MacOS, Netware, OS/2, VMS and Windows build machinery What are the plans for native Windows support? I don't know what they mean by "The right Portability team in place", but it'd be a joke if the lib would require CygWin or some other external portability scaffolding. And without proper Windows support LibreSSL will simply fragment OpenSSL user base. I guess it's still better than nothing, but it definitel…
I understand the point but this comes across as immature. OpenSSL has provided years of free software, supporting thousands of sites and applications. Of course it has its problems, and there is nothing wrong with adding more competition in this space. But what this space needs now, more than ever, is professionalism and pride in craft (by which I mean demonstrable unit test coverage, regression testing, fuzz testing…
Agreed, the tone of the page and the footer prevents me from taking these guys seriously, especially in this area (even more so with recent events).
The footer is a smack in the face to all those responsive bootstrap modern crap marketing websites - while this, table based layout, single page html provides more information and works in every device, with every resolution. Everything just included. As it should be.
This page probably took as much time to write as the sentences in the page - instead of fucking around with html initializr responsive themes, colors and oh god make it stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"This page scientifically designed to annoy web hipsters. Donate now to stop the Comic Sans and Blink Tags"
Shouldn't they rather worry about making SSL secure? I don't think I like their attitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather have great software and shitty PR than the recent trend of obnoxiously beautiful landing pages for “world-changing” shitty web apps.
I'd settle for great software and an innocuous, professional landing page. Let's have standards, people.
Every sentence and paragraph on that page is meaningful, unlike _any_ modern web crap app/mvp where visitor has to click and mock about just to find what the hell the page/project is about. Here its in the first sentence and you cant miss it.
OpenBSD folks, what is your obsession with CVS????
Why are people so obsessed with getting the OpenBSD developers to move from CVS? If it works for them and do what they need there's no need to move.
It is possible with CVS and even SVN to insert bad code on their repository server - but with git thats a much harder if not impossible to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I disagree. Whilst it's a natural choice for portability, when you port to a proprietary platform such as windows you lose a lot of the support and portability guarantees that POSIX gives you and the calling conventions and standards of many libraries. At this point it's advisable to pick a holistic 3rd party abstraction over this such as something right from APR to Qt that will abstract the platform specific im…
This is all great, but the fact remains that OpenSSL is very widely used on Windows and yanking it out without providing a drop-in replacement option is a bad idea. We can debate finer nuances of proper abstraction to the death, but it doesn't move a needle for people who already have OpenSSL dependencies in their code.
If windows (and any other non-OpenBSD OS to be honest) people just HAVE to have LibreSSL instead of OpenSSL on their OS then the donation link is at the bottom of the page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably none. Windows has its own CSP library which is a little more convenient in a win32 context than OpenSSL or anything POSIX TBH. I think they're doing the right thing here.
There's a ton of Windows software that uses OpenSSL as their security library. Moreover, there is a lot of Windows projects that are written in inherently portable way and using OpenSSL API is the most natural choice for them. If StartSSL manages to topple OpenSSL and to discourage any further OpenSSL development, then that'd be a very bad thing for a lot developers.
Can you elaborate on that? I thought StartSSL was a certification authority.