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

LibreSSL

libressl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 262 posts

Re: LibreSSL

#71

Post by sergiotapia »

sarahj wrote: post #19

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…

I still can't believe such a fundamental backbone of the web runs on $2000/year. This is a -worldwide- service, and it runs on peanuts. It's flabbergasting. Please donate today if you can.

https://www.openssl.org/support/donations.html

Re: LibreSSL

#72

Post by asddubs »

orthecreedence wrote: post #53
bananas wrote: post #36

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.

Ehh, I maintain a few libs that rely on the OpenSSL Windows ports. I'm not too keen on writing a compatibility layer that says "if windows, use the MS version, else use libreSSL!" I'm fine with them not supporting MSVC in the build, but is it really that much harder to support something like MinGW/MSYS? No need for Cygwin. The whole point of OpenSSL was that it runs everywhere. If we're going to write a shiny new ver…

you can write a layer that says "if windows, use openssl, else use libreSSL"

Re: LibreSSL

#73

Post by antirez »

Sanddancer wrote: post #59
antirez wrote: post #31

I imagine supporting non-POSIX operating systems, or not exactly conforming ones, to have its challenges, but is it really hard to make this stuff working in Linux and Open/NET/Free BSD from day one? It seems to me a better approach to start this way, without to mention that the potential developers base you get if you support Linux ASAP can be larger.

OpenBSD cares about their own first and foremost. OpenSSH has a similar porting team, and has since the beginning, and there have been no problems there.

"OpenBSD cares about their own first and foremost.".

This is their choice, but their impact in the security of IT is much smaller this way because most servers are running Linux. It is surely a great result to have an operating system like OpenBSD that can be proud of the security level reached and the small amount of vulnerabilities over the years, however if you analyze the computer security problem from a vendor-neutral standpoint, there is more at it than the availability of niche secure systems.

Re: LibreSSL

#75

Post by vayarajesh »

seszett wrote: post #67
vayarajesh wrote: post #24

Comic sans?? lol! This page scientifically designed to annoy web hipsters. Donate now to stop the Comic Sans and Blink Tags

While it is funny, I think using Comic Sans is actually more hipstery than ranting against it, which is too mainstream today (the same goes for blink tags).

There is a pro-type / mordern-type version of comic sans http://comicneue.com/ :)

Re: LibreSSL

#77

Post by Sanddancer »

orthecreedence wrote: post #53
bananas wrote: post #36

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.

Ehh, I maintain a few libs that rely on the OpenSSL Windows ports. I'm not too keen on writing a compatibility layer that says "if windows, use the MS version, else use libreSSL!" I'm fine with them not supporting MSVC in the build, but is it really that much harder to support something like MinGW/MSYS? No need for Cygwin. The whole point of OpenSSL was that it runs everywhere. If we're going to write a shiny new ver…

I imagine that's what the supported option is going to be. Given that the OpenSSH documentation explicitly lists Cygwin as the way to run it for windows, similar will probably happen for LibreSSL. The OpenBSD team has always had another team handle porting of their libraries, and they do a pretty good job of it.

Re: LibreSSL

#78

Post by asddubs »

simias wrote: post #69
bananas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd hope that I speak for the majority here when I say that OpenSSL has had its chance. This is the beauty of open source, nothing more. We can take this and make it better.

Quite frankly unless LibreSSL manages to raise more than 2000$ a year (what the OpenSSL fundation makes, apparently) I fail to see how they hope to avoid encountering the same kind of problems OpenSSL did (and still does). And given that the OpenBSD projects had to beg for donations to reach a 150k$ goal, if memory serves, I doubt they'll be able to sink a tremendous amount of money into LibreSSL. If you can't pay pe…

openbsd has a tremendously good track record with writing secure software, though. OpenSSH, anyone?

Re: LibreSSL

#79

Post by tragic »

keyle wrote: post #12
DiabloD3 wrote: post #5

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.

Ask yourself which hipster start-up is going to do a comprehensive rewrite job on OpenSSL - or, for that matter, which SV VC is going to bung a few million green sheets into something like this (which, if we're honest, we could all do with happening, rather than the next DOA social media start up with a -ly/-able/-r suffix).

If these people are prepared to take this on, then they can use whatever fonts they bloody well like. As a web hipster, I will pay them for punishing my hubris.

Having said that, I can't seem to find a browser in which the blink tags actually, er, blink. Did all the vendors shitcan it on the quiet? I think we should be told.

Post reply on HN