101–110 of 262 posts
Comic sans?? lol! This page scientifically designed to annoy web hipsters. Donate now to stop the Comic Sans and Blink Tags
Ah yes, the kind of professionalism I've come to expect from OpenBSD. They make decent software, but boy could they use some work in the PR department.
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.
Windows will probably get a port some time later on. Remember that OpenSSH's libssh also has Windows support. It's just not something that fits in their current short term goals of fixing up OpenSSL (I like the term flensing they're using).
It should rename to LibibreSSL instead, so that one can link the library with `-libressl`. Other than that, I appreciate this effort (no pun intended).
Why wouldn't they just make it available for linking as "ibressl" rather than naming the project that? LibibreSSL is unwieldy to put it mildly, and meaningless without the context of the original name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, the kind of professionalism I've come to expect from OpenBSD. They make decent software, but boy could they use some work in the PR department.
I'd rather have great software and shitty PR than the recent trend of obnoxiously beautiful landing pages for “world-changing” shitty web apps.
Does anyone have a link to repo in which it's being developed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 The LibreSSL guys are not yanking anything out of Windows, they're just providing an alternative to OpenSSL, for all the world to use, for free . They're not under any obligation to support Windows, no matter how bad you want them to.
I don't expect them to support Windows, you misunderstand the whole concern. The concern is that OpenBSD fellas are fragmenting the project and they are also asserting that OpenSSL team was doing things wrong for a long time. This is not a start of a beautiful friendship. Throw in a bit of crowd lynching (to the tune of "OpenBSD is showing OpenSSL how to do security right") and we can end up with OpenSSL devs showing…
[1] https://www.peereboom.us/assl/assl/html/openssl.html [2] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/l-opens... [3] http://lists.randombit.net/pipermail/cryptography/2012-Octob...
As someone without the Microsoft fonts using a browser that doesn't support the blink tag, I've totally missed out on the experience :(
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).
Comic Sans? Really? Edit: To those downvoting, yes, I saw the footer. This doesn't excuse their childish behavior. I will not be donating to this project if this is the level of seriousness they have for it.
I was about to post the exact same question. And if that's supposed to promote donations... (?!) Ask yourself if a founder dresses as a clown to get funding.
> 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…
maybe it's better to switch to NSS, the original SSL library developed by Netscape (now by Mozilla, Google, etc.), that is available under better open source licenses, is used in Firefox, (Chrome), OpenOffice, etc. and has an optional compatible API to OpenSSL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Security_Services
From the Pros & Cons table, it doesn't seem that NSS is obviously superior to OpenSSL. Both seem to suffer from focus on extra features instead of maintenance and reliability.