Toxic – A distributed, secure, command-line based instant messenging client

Post by threatofrain » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 4:45 AM UTC

impossibru wrote: post #24

ex-contributor wrote: post #12

DISCLAIMER: I am one of the many Tox ex-contributors, who used to work on it in the past. I don't want to be identified due to harassment other ex-contributors suffered in the past. The following message is my point of view on the project as a whole. Proplex, a long-time member of the Tox-Foundation and in charge of both infrastructure and marketing, called out tox devs because the 2 people in charge (irungentoo and…

This is literally a 4chan troll copying and pasting the same thing over and over again on /g/ http://rbt.asia/g/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=%22Afte... http://rbt.asia/g/?task=search&ghost=yes&search_text=The+%22... If you actually go and see the "proof" links you'll see most of them are 404 because the OP didn't bother to updating them.

Post by sillysaurus3 » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 4:54 AM UTC

jbangert wrote: post #40

My one experience with the Tox project was that I made a few (I thought) constructive suggestions. First, I suggested they use some form of static analysis or perhaps a 'safer' language to implement their core functionality - such as Rust or Go, instead of rather messy (at the time) C code. Furthermore, having spent a lot of time researching parsers and how parser differentials can affect the security of systems, I s…

Post by jbangert » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 5:03 AM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #52

jbangert wrote: post #40

My one experience with the Tox project was that I made a few (I thought) constructive suggestions. First, I suggested they use some form of static analysis or perhaps a 'safer' language to implement their core functionality - such as Rust or Go, instead of rather messy (at the time) C code. Furthermore, having spent a lot of time researching parsers and how parser differentials can affect the security of systems, I s…

Our of interest, could you share the url to the discussion?

Post by tox-exposed » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 5:11 AM UTC

impossibru wrote: post #28

ex-contributor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe the Tox Foundation is covering it up? Hopefully I archive most for good measure. https://archive.today/Y6LEw https://archive.today/MajJV https://archive.today/KkSWp https://archive.today/CWBUp http://a.pomf.se/kqwgsg.png

Yeah I read all that and it's really the main dev trying to track down the guy who maintained all the servers because he dropped everything. Maybe he acted awkwardly, I don't know, I don't care; the point is, there isn't some sort of "Tox Foundation conspiracy" trying to deceive everyone (as if the tox community was large enough to be worth deceiving) and given your tendency to shitpost on 4chan I would be more incli…

Post by jbangert » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 5:17 AM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #63

jbangert wrote: post #40

My one experience with the Tox project was that I made a few (I thought) constructive suggestions. First, I suggested they use some form of static analysis or perhaps a 'safer' language to implement their core functionality - such as Rust or Go, instead of rather messy (at the time) C code. Furthermore, having spent a lot of time researching parsers and how parser differentials can affect the security of systems, I s…

The response I got was rather disheartening and downright hostile - it boiled down to the fact that protocol buffers involves C++ code which they are a priori against Being against C++ isn't inherently a bad thing. For example, Tarsnap probably won't ever use C++ code. I can't read your PDF because of an SSL certificate error.