Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

D. J. Bernstein

aaronsw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: D. J. Bernstein

#91

Post by jrockway »

KirinDave wrote: post #52
astine wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate this attitude. If your code targets my system, I should be able to install it without editing it.

Amen. If no one can use your code, it doesn't matter how beautiful, well-thought-out, or well-written it is. Software exists for the purpose of being executed. If your project cannot be deployed with a reasonable amount of effort, it's worse than bad software, it's a waste of time.

What about easy-to-install software that makes it easy for Bad People to ruin the Internet and to compromise your server (and potentially your entire organization)?

That is bad too. If I had to pick between "secure + customizable but hard to setup" and "easy to set up, but is a one giant gaping security problem", I think I would rather have the first.

Software is about collaboration, like a relationship; one person shares their ideas (qmail), another shares his (your site's configuration), and both parties do better than the sum of their parts. Easy-to-install software that doesn't require thought or communication is a one-way conversation; nice in the short term, but not something you want to be with for the rest of your life.

Re: D. J. Bernstein

#92

Post by jrockway »

andreyf wrote: post #21
whirlycott1 wrote: post #5

I have dealt with qmail for ten years. It is a complete joy once you have it up and running. You literally can stop thinking about it because it always works. However, getting it up and running requires adding in antispam, antivirus, virtual mailboxes, some additional protective and administrative patches, some extra stuff for SMTP-AUTH, SSL/TLS, reporting, and perhaps a few more patches for fun. Patches, you say? We…

If code I write is hard to deploy to your system, I don't think my code can be to blame. Rather, it's the fault of the system/language in which we are working.

I agree with you. DJB wrote secure code that works very well and donated it to the public domain; if you want it to be Perfect For Your Needs, you are going to need to do that yourself. You are a unique snowflake, and your needs differ from DJB's.

"You suck for not doing enough work" is no way to treat someone giving you free software.

Re: D. J. Bernstein

#93

Post by jrockway »

astine wrote: post #37
andreyf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If code I write is hard to deploy to your system, I don't think my code can be to blame. Rather, it's the fault of the system/language in which we are working.

I hate this attitude. If your code targets my system, I should be able to install it without editing it.

qmail does not target your system.

Re: D. J. Bernstein

#94

Post by bdr »

tptacek wrote: post #66
andreyf wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having so clear a vision of how your architecture should behave that you human-compile it into idiosyncratic code that looks generated seems to be a very good definition of beautiful code, no? Maybe he hasn't had time to write a book about the "code patterns" which he's using, but that's hardly something to hold a grudge about.

Especially if you're a security person, I think it's uncontroversial to say that the design is beautiful. It's not only an elegant design, but it is the first major piece of systems code to take that design approach. To put it differently: most of major systems programs that have been proven secure in the last 10 years owe their design to qmail. But that has nothing to do with the code, which is not only epsilon from…

Are there are any well-written overviews of the aspects of qmail's design that you're referring to?

Re: D. J. Bernstein

#95

Post by ErrantX »

viraptor wrote: post #90
ErrantX wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

anything in the first few years of MS. Altair.BASIC

Of course. But I meant the source for which he could "win prizes for minimal or beautiful code". AFAIK none of it is legally available to anyone.

> I don't think anyone would claim Gates should win prizes for minimal or beautiful code

Re: D. J. Bernstein

#96

Post by unalone »

aaronsw wrote: post #82
unalone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, only slightly obnoxious. Nothing worse than somebody so relatively new to a field that they still think it objectively is better/cooler/more fulfilling than every other field.

It's hard to claim I'm new to programming. I did it for over a decade and then retired from it. Perhaps it's just nostalgia, then.

I know you are. Pretty much anybody with any ear for Reddit drama knows who you are. But you're sounding here like a child.

Re: D. J. Bernstein

#97

Post by wmf »

shawnps wrote: post #89
shawnps wrote: post #78

Could someone clarify this for me, please? On this page: http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/intro-dns.html under the "Multiple Servers" section, he says "To protect against computer failure, there are actually several root servers, several .to servers, and two yp.to servers." I don't understand, is he saying there are only two DNS servers in the world that you can contact to resolve yp.to?

Is there a way to find out for any given domain how many actual servers hand out responses to other DNS servers to hold in their caches?

You can use WHOIS or dig, e.g.

$ dig yp.to ns

; > DiG 9.4.3-P3 > yp.to ns ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER;; QUESTION SECTION: ;yp.to. IN NS

;; ANSWER SECTION: yp.to. 184700 IN NS b.ns.yp.to. yp.to. 184700 IN NS f.ns.yp.to.

Re: D. J. Bernstein

#99

Post by gjm11 »

tptacek wrote: post #66
andreyf wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having so clear a vision of how your architecture should behave that you human-compile it into idiosyncratic code that looks generated seems to be a very good definition of beautiful code, no? Maybe he hasn't had time to write a book about the "code patterns" which he's using, but that's hardly something to hold a grudge about.

Especially if you're a security person, I think it's uncontroversial to say that the design is beautiful. It's not only an elegant design, but it is the first major piece of systems code to take that design approach. To put it differently: most of major systems programs that have been proven secure in the last 10 years owe their design to qmail. But that has nothing to do with the code, which is not only epsilon from…

In fairness, C is a much nicer configuration language than sendmail.cf. For that matter, so is INTERCAL.
Post reply on HN